Social Security/Medicare for All

[PureX]

The advantage of universal single payer health care insurance over a public option for health care insurance, is that the cost of a universal single payer health care insurance risk pool is reduced by healthy members; whereas, a public option risk pool will have fewer healthy members that'd drive down its cost per recipient.

Not just that, but there is an enormous cost savings in having one system in terms of management. Look how insanely costly and confusing it is in the U.S. having hundreds of different insurance companies, each with their own unique pricing, policies, and forms to fill out, thousands if different hospitals, each with their own pricing, policies, and forms to to fill out, and drug companies, each with their own brand names for the same drugs, and with their own prices and distribution networks, including yet more individualized paperwork.

Having one agency setting prices, establishing policies, and designing the forms would save many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

 

[esmith]

Not just that, but there is an enormous cost savings in having one system in terms of management. Look how insanely costly and confusing it is in the U.S. having hundreds of different insurance companies, each with their own unique pricing, policies, and forms to fill out, thousands if different hospitals, each with their own pricing, policies, and forms to to fill out, and drug companies, each with their own brand names for the same drugs, and with their own prices and distribution networks, including yet more individualized paperwork.

Having one agency setting prices, establishing policies, and designing the forms would save many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

So you want the government to take over all drug companies, all hospitals, all medical professionals, all medical device manufactures, all distributions systems dealing with medical products, and basically anything having to do with medical issues, is that correct?

 

[Estro Felino]

So you want the government to take over all drug companies, all hospitals, all medical professionals, all medical device manufactures, all distributions systems dealing with medical products, and basically anything having to do with medical issues, is that correct?

Yes.
Mixing up health with business\money is monstrous.

 

[PureX]

So you want the government to take over all drug companies, all hospitals, all medical professionals, all medical device manufactures, all distributions systems dealing with medical products, and basically anything having to do with medical issues, is that correct?

It's not necessary for the government to "take over" the insurance companies, hospitals, or drug manufacturers. But because health care is NOT a free market, someone has to regulate it. And that is what we humans institute governments, for.

Other nations have developed a whole range of regulation scenarios, from government ownership and control to regulatory agencies that own nothing, but oversee how those who do own and operate health care businesses do so. Our current Medicare/Medicaid system owns nothing; no hospitals, no insurance companies, no doctors, and no drug companies. Yet it is determining how much it will pay to these private businesses and for what, and for whom. It does regulate the health care being provided to it's participants. So that the easiest thing to do in the U.S. would be to simply expand Medicare to include everyone who WANTS IT, and to give it the power to regulate the all prices, services, and data management for all it's participants.

The only reason we have not done so already is that the big business conglomerates involved in health care in the U.S. have been bribing our politicians not to. And the reason they will pay out all that bribe money is because they are making huge profits from price-gouging the American people for everything involved in health care and they want to continue doing this. If Medicare becomes universal, it would have to stop that price-gouging by setting the prices it will pay for it's participant's health care, and the big profit gravy train will end for those conglomerates. This is how every other modern nation on the planet has managed to provide their people with good health care (better than ours) for half what ours is currently costing us.

 

[Salvador]

Italy:
Income tax up to 43%.
VAT 22% standard.
Social security 9% directly and employer charged another 34%.
Corporate taxes up to 50%.

Also if you are a “high earner”, at just $60,000 per year, you are charged a lot more for health costs.

Not such a great system for most people.

Interesting facts: a VAT of 10 percent for funding Medicare for All here in the U.S. would be very reasonable compared to what this is in Italy. ...

 

[esmith]

It's not necessary for the government to "take over" the insurance companies, hospitals, or drug manufacturers. But because health care is NOT a free market, someone has to regulate it. And that is what we humans institute governments, for.

Other nations have developed a whole range of regulation scenarios, from government ownership and control to regulatory agencies that own nothing, but oversee how those who do own and operate health care businesses do so. Our current Medicare/Medicaid system owns nothing; no hospitals, no insurance companies, no doctors, and no drug companies. Yet it is determining how much it will pay to these private businesses and for what, and for whom. It does regulate the health care being provided to it's participants. So that the easiest thing to do in the U.S. would be to simply expand Medicare to include everyone who WANTS IT, and to give it the power to regulate the all prices, services, and data management for all it's participants.

The only reason we have not done so already is that the big business conglomerates involved in health care in the U.S. have been bribing our politicians not to. And the reason they will pay out all that bribe money is because they are making huge profits from price-gouging the American people for everything involved in health care and they want to continue doing this. If Medicare becomes universal, it would have to stop that price-gouging by setting the prices it will pay for it's participant's health care, and the big profit gravy train will end for those conglomerates. This is how every other modern nation on the planet has managed to provide their people with good health care (better than ours) for half what ours is currently costing us.

But if the government regulates the industry completely then the government has basically take control of the industry.

 

[PureX]

But if the government regulates the industry completely then the government has basically take control of the industry.

You seem to be working really hard in your mind at turning reasonable government oversight into some sort of totalitarian "nanny state". Medicare in the U.S. has been functioning just fine for a long time. It's our phony "free market" health care that is failing us in terms of overall quality, and is clearly costing us way too much. It doesn't matter who owns what, what matters is that health care is NOT A FREE MARKET and so it must be regulated or it becomes impossibly expensive and nearly useless for all but the very wealthy.

 

[esmith]

You seem to be working really hard in your mind at turning reasonable government oversight into some sort of totalitarian "nanny state". Medicare in the U.S. has been functioning just fine for a long time. It's our phony "free market" health care that is failing us in terms of overall quality, and is clearly costing us way too much. It doesn't matter who owns what, what matters is that health care is NOT A FREE MARKET and so it must be regulated or it becomes impossibly expensive and nearly useless for all but the very wealthy.

And just why do you say it is not a "free market".

Let me ask you a couple of questions
Are you on Medicare?
Do you know what Medicare Part A does and does not cover?
Do you know what Medicare Part B does and does not cover?
Do you know how much Medicare Part A cost?
Do you know how much Medicare Part B cost?
Who offers Medicare Part C & D and who controls the cost.

 

[PureX]

And just why do you say it is not a "free market".

Because if you don't buy, you die. There is no clearer example of a "captive market" then that. And what do you think is going to happen in a market where the buyers have to buy what the sellers are selling, or die? Of course, the price will go up until the buyer literally has nothing left to spend.

And that's health care in the U.S., right now.

The problem is that energy is also a captive market. So it transportation, and communication, and housing. So they are all price-gouging us until we literally have no more money to give them. That's how pricing in the US is being determined in all those captive markets: when the average middle-earning citizen literally has no more money to pay, that's the price that will be charged. The only "free markets" are luxury markets, these days. Nearly all essentials are captive markets because we cannot refuse to buy as we once could. We must have the products and services being sold to live in a modern interdependent society, and we have no realistic way to 'opt out'.

 

[esmith]

Because if you don't buy, you die. There is no clearer example of a "captive market" then that. And what do you think is going to happen in a market where the buyers have to buy what the sellers are selling, or die? Of course, the price will go up until the buyer literally has nothing left to spend.

And that's health care in the U.S., right now.

The problem is that energy is also a captive market. So it transportation, and communication, and housing. So they are all price-gouging us until we literally have no more money to give them. That's how pricing in the US is being determined in all those captive markets: when the average middle-earning citizen literally has no more money to pay, that's the price that will be charged. The only "free markets" are luxury markets, these days. Nearly all essentials are captive markets because we cannot refuse to buy as we once could. We must have the products and services being sold to live in a modern interdependent society, and we have no realistic way to 'opt out'.

I do believe that is what the ACA was then, of course they added if you don't buy we will fine you.
Why not let the consumer purchase a smorgasbord of the type of insurance they want from anywhere they want.
Sure you can refuse to buy anything you want as long as you are willing to accept the results.
There are various ways to opt out, you just don't seem to want to accept the results or the locations required to do so.
Seems you just don't want to forgo the "modern lifestyle".

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting facts: a VAT of 10 percent for funding Medicare for All here in the U.S. would be very reasonable compared to what this is in Italy. ...

In the 80s we used to have the most efficient healthcare system in Europe and one of the best in the world.
then the EU came and started imposing cuts cuts cuts

 

[Shaul]

Indeed. Italy can quit the NATO at once and become a Russian stronghold.
We're very tempted.

Well, Italy did try an alliance against America during WWII. That didn’t work out too well for it.

 

[Shaul]

"Up to?"
How much of your income is consumed by healthcare costs, child care, education, fire, police, military, roads and other social programs? Would 43% cover it?
How much paid vacation do you enjoy?

Yes, taxes are high in "socialist" countries, but that's because the state can obtain services used universally at much lower cost than individuals could. You come out ahead on the deal.

Well, Comrade, if you truly believe this you should give all your money over to the State. I’m sure you will excuse the rest of us for knowing better.

 

[Valjean]

So you want the government to take over all drug companies, all hospitals, all medical professionals, all medical device manufactures, all distributions systems dealing with medical products, and basically anything having to do with medical issues, is that correct?

What are you talking about? You've been listening to propaganda. No-one's advocating a government takeover.
Few healthcare systems are truly socialized. Britain's NHS and the US' Veteran's Administration are exceptions. Most others are either regulated, not-for-profit insurance systems, or single-payer systems. Hospitals and medical personnel remain private and independent.

But if the government regulates the industry completely then the government has basically take control of the industry.

No, the regulations are only to insure high quality and prevent price gouging and exploitation. Healthcare decisions are made by the patients and physicians.
If anyone is 'controlling' healthcare, it's the insurance and
pharmaceutical industries.

 

[Valjean]

And just why do you say it is not a "free market".

Let me ask you a couple of questions
Are you on Medicare?
Do you know what Medicare Part A does and does not cover?
Do you know what Medicare Part B does and does not cover?
Do you know how much Medicare Part A cost?
Do you know how much Medicare Part B cost?
Who offers Medicare Part C & D and who controls the cost.

The system was originally conceived as a single system covering everything. It was the free market grabbing for pieces of the pie and lack of government intervention that resulted in the fragmented system we have today.

 

[Valjean]

I do believe that is what the ACA was then, of course they added if you don't buy we will fine you.
Why not let the consumer purchase a smorgasbord of the type of insurance they want from anywhere they want.

Because that hasn't worked well. The contracts are byzantine, and full of exclusionary clauses. Consumers end up buying overpriced, junk insurance.
Moreover, unregulated insurance adds to hospital costs, requiring whole departments to negotiate the maze. They also interfere with care, since Drs have to negotiate with insurance companies over what treatments will be paid for, rather than the physician prescribing the optimum treatment.

 

[Valjean]

Well, Comrade, if you truly believe this you should give all your money over to the State. I’m sure you will excuse the rest of us for knowing better.

Just open your eyes. Other countries manage to cover everyone, at half the cost, with better outcomes.
It's corporations that raise costs and decrease quality, not government. Government is supposed to be us. It's supposed to be a co-op, and protect us from predatory corporations.

 

[PureX]

I do believe that is what the ACA was then, of course they added if you don't buy we will fine you.
Why not let the consumer purchase a smorgasbord of the type of insurance they want from anywhere they want.

Because the consumer is not in control of the market. That is what you still don't seem to get. In a captive market, the buyer is not in control of the quality or the price. And the seller wants to give as little as possible while gaining as much as possible. So that only those with more money than most will be able to afford the commodity being sold. "Everybody buying what they want" is a fantasy that isn't available in the reality of a captive market.

Sure you can refuse to buy anything you want as long as you are willing to accept the results.

When death and suffering for you and your loved ones is the result, that is not a realistic choice, is it. And if you insist on believing that it is, you are a fool.

 

[esmith]

The system was originally conceived as a single system covering everything. It was the free market grabbing for pieces of the pie and lack of government intervention that resulted in the fragmented system we have today.

Don't care to answer the questions?

 

[esmith]

Because the consumer is not in control of the market. That is what you still don't seem to get. In a captive market, the buyer is not in control of the quality or the price. And the seller wants to give as little as possible while gaining as much as possible. So that only those with more money than most will be able to afford the commodity being sold. "Everybody buying what they want" is a fantasy that isn't available in the reality of a captive market.
When death and suffering for you and your loved ones is the result, that is not a realistic choice, is it. And if you insist on believing that it is, you are a fool.

So I suggest you move to a country where an entity controls all prices, because hopefully what you seem to want will never be accepted here (at least in my lifetime).