Healthcare solution thoughts

No argument from me, but it still goes to the point that the Government can't handle veterans care so why would they be able to handed mine or yours any better.

 

Medicare is single payer private delivery.. It is NOTHING like the government run VA.

 

Please educate me about the money that is generate for veterans. I am not one, but I thought the money for veterans care was wrapped up in the defense budget, basically making it a pool of money that is used as needed on veterans.

 

I don't know exactly. I don't think its in the defense budget. VA healthcare costs about $12,000 per patient whereas its about $7,000 for the private sector and Medicare.

 

A quick google search seems to indicate it's a stand alone item in the budget.....was not super clear though.

Point is the money to care for the veterans still comes from a pool of money like a single payer would. I don't really understand why there would be such a cost difference between them though, but in the end to me it's not about the cost, but the care. Much like the education in the US, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it if the care/education sucks.

Thank you for educating on subjects that I'm not familiar with. I will look into them more to see what I can learn.

 

The bulk of charities that do provide some kind of healthcare assistance are connected to religions. The two biggest are the Red Cross and the Red Crescent but both are focused primarily on emergency care in disaster relief situations. The only charity that is not affiliated with a religion that I am aware of is Doctors Without Borders who do sterling work in poor rural areas. It is interesting to note that they chose to provide free healthcare to Americans who could not afford healthcare prior to the ACA being passed. (I donated to those efforts.)

So the agenda of religious charities that provide non emergency healthcare is done as a part of their "religious outreach" programs or missionary work if you prefer that term. The concept being that by healing the sick they will gain converts to their religion and thus expand their influence. This was a major problem for the Bush/Cheney regime when they tried to introduce their "faith based initiatives" program because it violated the 1st Amendment. In essence government funding cannot be used to promote religious beliefs and that is exactly what these charities were doing when they were providing healthcare. There is clearly an "agenda" and yes, they do take advantage of suffering to further that agenda.

Government does not have to provide the actual healthcare itself and yes, it doesn't do a great job when it tries. However the government of We the People has come up with two extraordinarily successful ways to care for the General Welfare of We the People. The first being Social Security that is internationally recognized as one of the best programs of it's kinds in the world. It ensures that no one lives in abject poverty when they can no longer work.

The second program is Medicare and that provides healthcare insurance to the elderly who cannot afford the rising costs of healthcare. While it only covers about 20% of the population Medicare part A is fully funded by a 2.9% payroll tax (87% of the cost) and premiums (13% of the cost). This program has minimal overheads because it is a Single Payer that reimburses private sector medical service providers.

There is technically no reason why it cannot be expanded to cover the other 80% of the nation and even if the taxes increased 5 fold that would still be LESS than what is currently spent on private health insurance.

 

God love you... You explained that beautifully.....

 

Mayb

Maybe Derideo can be persuaded to start a thread on payroll taxes that fund Medicare.. I am trying but I'm afraid I'm a bit of a tanglefoot on this.

 

The topic of this thread is broad enough to cover the discussion of Medicare funding if the need arises and it isn't rocket science.

Bear in mind that the 20% covered by Medicare are the most expensive part of the population when it comes to healthcare costs. The other 80% might not need another 12% tax increase to cover them all since they are younger and healthier.

I was just doing a very simple example to make the point that it is feasible to provide Single Payer Universal Healthcare in this nation.

 

Exactly.. The lion's share of the healthcare dollar is used by the elderly, the indigent and million dollar premature babies. Young, working Americans who are contributing to the system use less than 40%.....

 

Screw them. Their idiotic greed is both stupid and unpatriotic.
Any insurance creates a pool of people who are essentially paying for other people's needs.

 

2. Many people do not want a single payer or "universal healthcare" because they feel we shouldn't have to pay for other peoples insurance. So what about a "charity Insurance Program"?

You have been paying for other people for half a century.. Its called COST SHIFTING.

 

There are many, many articles and studies that indicate more and more doctors are not accepting Government ran insurance though. According to the articles this is somewhat due to dealing with the government, but also because the government has put a cap on payments that the doctors don't feel is worth their time/effort. If we go all in on single payer won't this potentially drive good doctors out of practice for better paying jobs? (There are already many studies that show general practitioners are declining) Similar to teachers in the US that don't get paid what they deserve you end up with teachers that are in it for the summer off and all of the breaks or they are not good teachers and shouldn't be teaching, but they have a job because teachers are needed.

Do we want mediocre doctors? I know we have some now, but it may become more prevalent by the sounds of these articles and studies.

 

Not entirely true. Yes I'm paying medical insurance cost, which are then being used to pay for the medical treatment of someone within that Insurer. The difference is that EVERYONE with that insurer is paying though, not some of them. So we ALL pay into the pool of money and we all have access to it. Not really the same pool, wouldn't you agree?

 

That's NOT what cost shifting is... Regardless of who your insurance carrier is, you are paying for the healthcare of senior citizens, the indigent, people with chronic diseases and million dollar premature babies.

 

I stopped reading at "because they feel we shouldn't have to pay for other peoples insurance". Everyone pays for everyone else's insurance. Insurance BY DESIGN is a socialist endeavor. If someone doesn't want to "pay for someone else's insurance" then they should not buy ANY insurance.

If you want to fix healthcare stop worry about ways to pay for it, and focus on ways to keep costs down. There are way to many pigs at the trough in the delivery of healthcare. Until we figure that part out, were all just beating our heads against a wall

 

Please provide these studies and while you are at it who it was that funded these studies.

 

You do realize that Medicare is BY FAR the most bureaucratic and thus difficult insurer for medical offices to administrate, do you not ? Just because Medicare covers a particular drug or procedure, does NOT mean that specific patient meets their requirements. It is the Prior Authorization process that is so laborious for medical offices, and the Prior Auth process with Medicare is a living nightmare. It requires the most paperwork of any insurer, and takes the longest to make determinations. This notion that somehow turning everything into Medicare is going to be a panacea for medical offices is completely bereft of reality.

 

You know I have no problem with a single payer as long as each state can create and run their own. Or not have one if they dont want one. Of course the federal government would have to end its taxation for those federal plans but then those tax funds can be created by the state if they wish. Very simply it is not within the powers of the federal government to provide healthcare for the average citizen. They have taken on that power without amending the Constitution and that is wrong. So to me they should either stop or amend the Constitution.

 

States can already start their own single payer plan if they want to. Notice that even the bluest of states don't want to.

 

Based upon your last comment it will be pointless for me to. When we base the data generated by a study on who funded the study or performed the study and you automatically stop listening all studies become pointless. Do I feel your wrong.....not entirely, but that is the age we are in. You have studies on a subject that you believe in and others that you do not, which makes studies as a whole pointless.

Will you take articles?

 

Yes, I will take articles.

The reason why I asked who funded the studies is because there are many "studies" that are deliberate disinformation intended to obfuscate the actual scientific studies about healthcare.

The credibility of the source is an important factor to consider at all times and therefore credible studies are far from pointless after discarding the misleading studies.

 

I really getting tired of repeating the obvious, of course, private insurance uses subscribers’ money to pay for claims, do you really think that they pay out from their profit charges? In short, both single payer and private companies use the same way to provide cover; the only difference is that government health care isn’t run for profit, rather the opposite in fact.

 

I take it you mean shop around for a company that is not a member of the cartel. Best of luck.