Health Care

[57Brave]

[57Brave]

back then you could buy good health insurance for about $12.50 a month.

[AerchAngel]

back then you could buy good health insurance for about $12.50 a month.

And doctors don't get paid.

[57Brave]

No, doctors lived well.
I grew in an area populated with professional people.
Doctors,lawyers engineers etc all had the best of the best

I dont know if it is related but
Before the early 70's they routinely made house calls.
No go to the ER for the flu, Drs came to you

Different world

[nsacpi]

with both medicine and education, reformers would do well to look at the bureaucratization of the two industries

you will find that the number of ahem administrators has simply exploded

the fix to me is rather obvious

and the reason the fix has not happened is also obvious: in various ways there is a bipartisan "conspiracy" that supports policies aimed at promoting the interests of the insiders as opposed to the people they are supposed to be helping (students and patients)

administrative overhead...it sounds rather mundane...but it is the reason we have bloated inefficient educational and medical systems in this country...there is a deeper question of why administrative overhead has grown so much...it is like weeds in the garden and we need to hack it down

there are a lot of good doctors and teachers who are incredibly frustrated at how much of their time is spent on paperwork

[striker42]

There's no perfect fix. However, too often we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The small common sense improvements get lost in both sides wanting everything their way or nothing at all.

[nsacpi]

There's no perfect fix. However, too often we let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The small common sense improvements get lost in both sides wanting everything their way or nothing at all.

generally i agree...incremental change is better than wholesale social engineering...especially for something so complicated with so many moving parts

the other thing i would say is that around the world there is a wide variety of practices when it comes to healthcare...we shouldn't be so proud and arrogant as to think there is nothing to learn by looking at what other countries do

there are some unique things about American healthcare we should try to keep...the amount of innovation for example...let's not kill the things that incentivize that innovation

[57Brave]

[cajunrevenge]

Doesnt the US government already spend more than these countries on healthcare per person? Like twice as much?

[striker42]

How do you pay for it? That's the big, central question. I'm not morally opposed to some kind of system guaranteeing healthcare for all. I have just never heard a legitimate plan to pay for it. We can't afford what we do now. How can we afford another massive entitlement program?

[57Brave]

how do you pay for it now ?
How have the above 30+ countries paid for it ? With out turning back the clock ?

yes Cajun, we do.
We are also, last I checked, in the teens in infant mortality.
All the while arguing about fetus' or some such hypocritical political nonsense.

3-2-1 " we have inovation"
which is great
But cost prohibitive to masses of people


Take some time to watch Congressional hearings from this week

[57Brave]

How do you pay for it? That's the big, central question. I'm not morally opposed to some kind of system guaranteeing healthcare for all. I have just never heard a legitimate plan to pay for it. We can't afford what we do now. How can we afford another massive entitlement program?

Congress appropriated $1.57 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to build Donald Trump's wall last year. That built 1.7 miles worth of fence, according to the updates Congress has gotten from the administration. That's according to documents filed in a challenge from 20 state attorneys general and the Sierra Club to block Trump's emergency declaration to use money not appropriated by Congress for that purpose to build it.

That's going to be news to the bloated orange one, who claimed just this week that "The wall is being built as we speak. We'll have almost 500 miles of wall by the end of next year." At roughly $1 billion per linear mile, it's safe to say that's not going to be happening.

Trump's not going to let the "Haters," or reality, stop his fantasy life, however. Not when he still has Twitter. "Much of the Wall being built at the Southern Border is a complete demolition and rebuilding of old and worthless barriers with a brand new Wall and footings. Problem is, the Haters say that is not a new Wall, but rather a renovation. Wrong, and we must build where most needed…." he spluttered Wednesday morning. "Also, tremendous work is being done on pure renovation—fixing existing Walls that are in bad condition and ineffective, and bringing them to a very high standard!" he insisted in the follow-up tweet.

So, to sum up, Trump is still telling his gullible followers that he is building the wall. Also he's not building the wall. Also, Mexico still isn't paying for it.

-
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
....................

wonder how many Mamograms $1.75B would buy.
We have the money

Wonder how much Insulin $1.75B would buy
We have the money

[57Brave]

How do you pay for it? That's the big, central question.

Cant remember anyone asking that question



U.S. taxpayers have spent $81 million for the president’s two dozen trips to Florida, according to a HuffPost analysis. They spent $17 million for his 15 trips to New Jersey, another $1 million so he could visit his resort in Los Angeles and at least $3 million for his two days in Scotland last summer ― $1.3 million of which went just for rental cars for the massive entourage that accompanies a president abroad.


By S.V. Date
HuffPost


A little over $100M wont go very far granted, but,
it certainly would be a welcome

https://nypost.com/2019/01/08/inside...-for-all-plan/

[Julio3000]

Doesnt the US government already spend more than these countries on healthcare per person? Like twice as much?

No. Not even close to twice as much, although we do spend a lot per capita compared to a lot of countries that have universal coverage and better outcomes... which is just more evidence that public subsidies of private insurers and providers is a stupid system.

[Julio3000]

Stuff like this and your border wall example is the equivalent of searching the couch cushions for loose change. Medicare for all, the most popular single payer option, would cost several trillion every year. You're not finding that kind of money in wasteful spending. There would have to be a major tax increase.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that if there's medicare for all, they'll have all that money they're currently spending on health insurance premiums to spend however they want. In reality, funding medicare for all would likely require an increase in the payroll tax equal to or exceeding what most people with private health insurance already pay in premiums. This burden would disproportionately affect lower and middle income individuals.

If you think it's worth it, that's a completely valid viewpoint. Just depends on your priorities and personal feelings. I personally would like to see incremental change. Try to fix the weak points in the current system (and there are lots of them) and see where we're at.

Can you show me how you determined this?

[nsacpi]

A low cost public option makes sense as the next incremental step. It could be grafted upon the current system, with minimal disruption to those satisfied with their medical care insurance.

[striker42]

Can you show me how you determined this?

It's the most commonly cited method of paying for it in plans that are proposed. It's the only real way to fund it. You'd have to take the money people are already having taken out of their checks to pay for health insurance and shift it into the government coffers.

I really don't know if there is any legitimate plan possible that would not shift what people are already paying for premiums into paying into medicare.

[Julio3000]

It's the most commonly cited method of paying for it in plans that are proposed. It's the only real way to fund it. You'd have to take the money people are already having taken out of their checks to pay for health insurance and shift it into the government coffers.

I really don't know if there is any legitimate plan possible that would not shift what people are already paying for premiums into paying into medicare.

Right, I know that the Sanders plan, for example, includes both an employer- and an employee-side payroll tax. I’m just not sure about the assertion that it would amount to the same as current insurance premiums. Using those figures, roughly: a family of 4 with an income of 50K pays a 4% payroll tax. That’s less than $900 annually. Ok, let’s double it, because there’s definitely going to be a scramble to find the money. That’s still considerably less than the average cost of insurance for that family. Less than half, even.

[57Brave]

Colorado on Wednesday became the first state in the country to limit how much someone could be required to pay out-of-pocket for insulin

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...QY5ijzDQIIUH9k

[striker42]

Right, I know that the Sanders plan, for example, includes both an employer- and an employee-side payroll tax. I’m just not sure about the assertion that it would amount to the same as current insurance premiums. Using those figures, roughly: a family of 4 with an income of 50K pays a 4% payroll tax. That’s less than $900 annually. Ok, let’s double it, because there’s definitely going to be a scramble to find the money. That’s still considerably less than the average cost of insurance for that family. Less than half, even.

A lot depends on what the new plan would look like. If you want a system with no copays and no coinsurance, you're going to have to come up with tremendously more money than people currently pay in premiums.

If you're still having copays and coinsurance, you'll still likely need more money but not as much. You'll have greater use of the healthcare system with greater access but some of that will be offset by administrative savings and negotiated rates. But that probably wont be enough. You'll still need to raise more revenue. My guess would be that the bulk of this could probably be had by people currently not paying for insurance or paying for minimal insurance paying more in payroll taxes than they're currently paying. That does put the burden of the plan on less affluent individuals though.

You say you could double the payroll tax and it would be less than people's health insurance premiums. But in order to fund this system you'd have to way more than double it for most people. The math doesn't work otherwise.

Ultimately, the only way to do this is to shift pretty much everything everyone is paying for premiums now into the new system and come up with more on top of that. It's doable. It's just whether or not people have the stomach to pay the price.