Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Mar 2016, 4:56 pm

How about this:
Everyone who does not have Medicaid gets a tax break equal to the cost of the Medicaid plan. Those who use Medicaid don't.

Come to think of it, I would do the same for schooling. You have kids in private or home schooling, you would have a tax credit for the cost of the schooling.

As for the doctors:
As the link I posted said, the payments to the doctors were lower than the ones they could make privately. A fee bump was instituted in PA and that helped, but the costs to the system would be much more problematic.

Your desire for medical treatment to be paid for by someone else is a noble cause, but not in the US Constitution.

I have asked this before, but if everyone is entitled to a minimum stipend for medical, housing, food and whatever else you see fit, why not pay EVERYONE that amount as a yearly stipend and then be done with it. At least then it would be equally doled out.

Of course that won't happen. You only want the middle class and upper class to have to pay for it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Mar 2016, 7:23 am

You know, bbauska, its not like the US, in investigating different ways of delivering health care efficiently, is breaking new ground. Its all been done before. And other systems are doing much better. Your problem seems to be cleaving to some notion that everything has to be "fair" to the rich. They do okay no matter what. They have the resources to avoid having to use a public system.
The question is how do you actual provide health care to all? How can you make it a right?
Because it should be. It really is in the US to an extent.... You said:

bbauska
Your desire for medical treatment to be paid for by someone else is a noble cause, but not in the US Constitution


No? But under this law?

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. [b]There are no reimbursement provisions.[/b] Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]

Tell me B, under this law who do you think pays for the treatments? Magic?

bbauska
Everyone who does not have Medicaid gets a tax break equal to the cost of the Medicaid plan. Those who use Medicaid don't.

Come to think of it, I would do the same for schooling. You have kids in private or home schooling, you would have a tax credit for the cost of the schooling.

First thought:
So someone who's taken the tax break, but hasn't bought health insurance privately ends up at emergency. he's broke, even bankrupt, and can't pay for his treatment...
Do you let him suffer without treatment? Who pays if you do treat him?
Why should emergent care physicians have to worry about the patients ability to pay for their care? Why is that part of the job description?

Second Thought:
School benefits more than just the people who go to school. There is a purpose behind schooling and education.
The reason public schooling began, was because industrialists required a better educated work force.
Nothing has changed. For society to function an educated populace, with both transferable skills and specific training is required. If not enough people are trained as doctors and nurses, you have a labor shortage and a problem serving the populace.
If education becomes too expensive, then society begins to suffer as less talented people get into schools, just because they can afford the schools. OR not enough people are trained in certain skills and professions... (When the GI Bill opened up US universities to the working and middle class, they became much more competitive and produced better graduates. The GIs got free tuition, room and board.)

One of the interesting difference between Canada and the US is that (in 2008) the average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor’s debt is roughly half that.
Under Sanders I guess tuition at State medical schools would be free and American doctors would have less debt too.
With less debt, they could work for less...... So free education is paid back in lower operating costs for the health care system....

This is old (following), and it compares a crappy health care system with an even worse system, but it may help clear up some of your misconceptions about how single payer actually works and why its more efficient and effective. But its not perfect. Nothing is...
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/ ... _canad.php
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Mar 2016, 9:37 am

If it is provided for already under the law, then why the need for the ACA?

You said I want it to be fair for the "rich", and that is not what I said. I want it to be fair and equal for all. If a "rich person wanted to go into the Farm workers Clinic and get a flu shot for free, should he/she be allowed to? Should a minimum wage worker be allowed to get a free flu shot? Are your answers the same? Should they be?

Concerning your thoughts...
First thought - whose fault is that where a person takes the tax break, but does not buy the insurance?
Second thought - Are the industrialist getting their money's worth out of the public school system with it ranking near the bottom in so many categories compared to the industrialized world?

My problem with the change and push toward more and more government assistance and "equality" is that it takes away more and more of the personal responsibility away. The more things are pushed toward that end, the more I push the other way. Hence my beliefs about tax breaks for all.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr638pCfPxs
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Mar 2016, 10:34 am

I asked what explains why other advanced countries spend less money on health care and seem to be doing just fine relative to morality rates (actually better) relative to US rates.

RJ: "There may be offsetting factors including obesity, gun violence, lifestyle, cultural differences, etc."

So I found this study by the National Research Council looking at why the US is not doing as well with regard to life expectancy as other advanced countries. Their findings as to proposed explanations :

1. Obesity rates? Probably
2. Smoking? Probably
3. Social integration? Not clear.
4. Health care? Not treatment but access for those without insurance could be a factor.
5. Physical activity? Not clear
6. Hormone Therapy for women? Probably not a factor
7. Inequality? Could be a factor.

Here is the study. Near the end of this chapter it has links to the different possible factors it looked at. You can look at the end of those chapter for summary discussions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62 ... ort=reader

Here is another study on growing differential life expectancies in the the US for those over 50 based on income.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/health36 ... me-sheiner
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Mar 2016, 2:22 pm

bbauska
If it is provided for already under the law, then why the need for the ACA?

Because providing care for the indigent through emergency wards is stupid. Its inefficient delivery in the most expensive way possible and stops the indigent from seeking care for their problems when they are more easily treatable.

bbauska
You said I want it to be fair for the "rich", and that is not what I said. I want it to be fair and equal for all. If a "rich person wanted to go into the Farm workers Clinic and get a flu shot for free, should he/she be allowed to? Should a minimum wage worker be allowed to get a free flu shot? Are your answers the same? Should they be
?
Everyone should have equal access to a free flu shot.
1) Its most easily administered this way, and most cost effective.
2) Vaccinations are meant to produce a herd effect that eradicates a virus or disease. To have this work most people, and ideally all that can should be vaccinated. In order to encourage everyone, they should be free. Its called Public Health for a reason.

Concerning your thoughts...
First thought - whose fault is that where a person takes the tax break, but does not buy the insurance?

The person who doesn't insure IS at fault. If they now can't afford the care at the hospital should they be turned away to die?

Second thought - Are the industrialist getting their money's worth out of the public school system with it ranking near the bottom in so many categories compared to the industrialized world?

Well, in Finland the public system is great. So maybe look at how they educate their young...
Be that as it may, the reason public education exists is for the good of society, not just the students.

Bbauska
My problem with the change and push toward more and more government assistance and "equality" is that it takes away more and more of the personal responsibility away. The more things are pushed toward that end, the more I push the other way. Hence my beliefs about tax breaks for all. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.


Its not so much making government bigger. Its about doing things more efficiently and effectively. and sometimes its easier to make something available to all .... without convoluting the delivery of the service with all kinds of rules, restrictions, qualifiers and classifications. Or false "markets" that don't act like markets but only serve to generate costs. (Like insurance company administration and profit)
And by doing so actually making the provision of the service smaller.....
Health Care takes up 17 to 18% of the GDP in the US. Only 12% in Canada. 10% in the UK.
And yet both the UK (especially) and Canada have better systems in terms of coverage and health outcomes .
Again, this makes the health care sector smaller, but better meets the actual needs of society.

The reason this exists in the US is that the industry serves to fatten the pocket books of certain stake holders in the sector. And changes to the system threaten their interests.
The ACA met a few goals, such as moving closer to universal coverage. (With republican governors cooperating rather than fighting this it could be close to 100%, so its not the law but the opposition to the law that is stopping this achievement,)
But it doesn't appear to be as effective at fighting medical cost inflation as hoped. That's too bad.
Did you know that over 50 percent of Americans (including one-quarter of Republicans and nearly 80 percent of Democrats) say they support a single-payer "Medicare for All" approach to health insurance, something Sanders has long advocated. Only 36 percent oppose the idea. 12 percent are neutral.
Seventy-one percent Americans support a public option, which would give individuals the choice of buying healthcare through Medicare or private insurers. This was part of Obama's original health care plan but the insurance industry lobby killed it, thanks to every Senate Republican and a handful of Senate Democrats, led by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. I think you are pretty much in the group that would support this idea no?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Mar 2016, 2:08 pm

If Americans wanted socialized medicine, we would have it.

If some want it, they are free to move to Canada, right?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Mar 2016, 3:46 pm

fate
If Americans wanted socialized medicine, we would have it
.

You have medicaid and medicare.
Both are very popular. They are both social welfare programs.

So is Medicare for all... (What you might call socialized medicine.)

When asked their opinion, nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) say they favor the idea of Medicare-for-all, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor it. This is compared to 34 percent who say they oppose it, including 25 percent who strongly oppose it. Opinions vary widely by political party identification, with 8 in 10 Democrats (81 percent) and 6 in 10 independents (60 percent) saying they favor the idea, while 63 percent of Republicans say they oppose it.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/12/17/kaiser- ... e-for-all/

Of course the problem that many have right now is that government isn't responsive and doesn't give them what they want...
Much of the electorate is angry because they believe the system is rigged for the plutocracy and the corporations. And in the case of health insurance it certainly has been. Obamacare is a compromise made in hell, because many in Washington ARE in the pockets of Big Pharma and the insurance industry,....
Meaning, quite simply, that Americans don't always get what they want. They get what the system wants...
That rage is felt by Sanders supporters and by Trumps supporters.(And probably a healthy share of otehr candidates supporters too)
Its just that Trumps supporters, as your Klaven video illustrates, don't really know who they should be blaming so they blame Mexicans...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Mar 2016, 4:06 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
If Americans wanted socialized medicine, we would have it
.

You have medicaid and medicare.
Both are very popular. They are both social welfare programs.


I said to the goalposts, "move!" and they did!

So is Medicare for all... (What you might call socialized medicine.)


If it's popular, then why didn't Obama pass it? Hey, with his record, why not just executive order it?

Of course the problem that many have right now is that government isn't responsive and doesn't give them what they want...


So, why not give them more government efficiency, eh?

Much of the electorate is angry because they believe the system is rigged for the plutocracy and the corporations. And in the case of health insurance it certainly has been. Obamacare is a compromise made in hell, because many in Washington ARE in the pockets of Big Pharma and the insurance industry,....


The socialists did it. They own it--every single vote.

Meaning, quite simply, that Americans don't always get what they want. They get what the system wants...


So, they should move to Canada!

That rage is felt by Sanders supporters and by Trumps supporters.(And probably a healthy share of otehr candidates supporters too)
Its just that Trumps supporters, as your Klaven video illustrates, don't really know who they should be blaming so they blame Mexicans...


When, in fact, they should be blaming Canada. Canada has one thing worth stealing: the Stanley Cup, which is why you people will never see it again.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Apr 2016, 11:07 am

Good thing we have the ACA!

Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year.

Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether.

“Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on the health law at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.”
While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”

In the short term, there is a growing likelihood that insurers will push for substantial premium increases, creating a political problem for Democrats in an election year.

Insurers have been pounding the drum about problems with ObamaCare pricing.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a widely publicized report last month that said new enrollees under ObamaCare had 22 percent higher medical costs than people who received coverage from employers.

And a report from McKinsey & Company found that in the individual market, which includes the ObamaCare marketplaces, insurers lost money in 41 states in 2014, and were only profitable in 9 states.

“We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, said in February.


The question is how much longer we will have it.

Oh, the other question is how high will the rates go?

Thanks Obama!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Apr 2016, 11:35 am

bbauska wrote:How about this:
Everyone who does not have Medicaid gets a tax break equal to the cost of the Medicaid plan. Those who use Medicaid don't.
That's directly the opposite of the way Medicaid is funded, isn't it?

You pay for it while you can afford to, and then when you can't you qualify for it. It's called "social insurance".

Why not extend the same thing to unemployment benefits? Because it's the whole point of unemployment benefits, that's why.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Apr 2016, 11:42 am

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:How about this:
Everyone who does not have Medicaid gets a tax break equal to the cost of the Medicaid plan. Those who use Medicaid don't.
That's directly the opposite of the way Medicaid is funded, isn't it?

You pay for it while you can afford to, and then when you can't you qualify for it. It's called "social insurance".


Not necessarily--some people will never pay for it. So, it's pretty much a straight welfare plan.

However, I think without some counterbalancing measure, Brad's suggestion would "break the bank."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Apr 2016, 12:11 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:How about this:
Everyone who does not have Medicaid gets a tax break equal to the cost of the Medicaid plan. Those who use Medicaid don't.
That's directly the opposite of the way Medicaid is funded, isn't it?

You pay for it while you can afford to, and then when you can't you qualify for it. It's called "social insurance".


Not necessarily--some people will never pay for it. So, it's pretty much a straight welfare plan.
Yes, those born with disabilities are an example.

However, I think without some counterbalancing measure, Brad's suggestion would "break the bank."

I doubt he looked at the actual costs,,,
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 15 Apr 2016, 12:42 pm

No, I looked at them. I want people to see how much things would cost for "equality".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Apr 2016, 1:18 pm

bbauska wrote:No, I looked at them. I want people to see how much things would cost for "equality".
So what were the costs, in dollars per year?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Apr 2016, 8:29 am

I am not going to give a number. I want to show that it would be more expensive than not paying everyone. (Basic Algebra- The cost of something added to the cost of another item is more than the original)

That is the cost of equality.

I am not going to look for a number that is hypothetical for your nitpicking pleasure.