my idea for universal medical care compromise

Discussion in 'Health Care' started by kazenatsu, Aug 28, 2019.

  1. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s fake news....we’ll have the same hospitals and same providers. So, you really don’t want poorer people to survive your recessions, even if it costs less per person and they still contribute through payroll taxes. You just luv spending more....
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2020
  2. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would you like me to read my response to you ?
    Nearly Half the people with preexisting conditions, 47% could not get employer based HC before Obamacare which covered it. These aren’t just poor people. Many died or went bankrupt. Millions of middle class, over 90% of the Bush recession job losses, lost their employer based HC. You’re really confident about Republican recessions are we. 9-10 and Trump will have his. They own them. People die or go bankrupt for lack of insurance when it happens.
     
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    8,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The same hospitals and same providers currently competing with eachother to maximize profits... what do you think will happen when they no longer have incentive to outperform the competition? Bare minimum of service and maximum cutting corners they can get away with to meet regs is what will happen.

    And give it up already with the tired old 'you dont care about poor people' crap. Im not wealthy. Nor and am I in any way advocating against the poor getting care. Just dont make me pay into it. Do w/e the **** you want as long as I can opt out. The system that cant help the poor without my forced participation isn't going to help the poor with it either.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  4. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rediculous supposition. Do you really know what “for profit” means ? The incentive is just the opposite. Cutting services increases the profits going to investors. The investors don’t do the work. It’s about the pay scale for the laborers and those are unaffected and in most cases, increased. Laughable. You don’t even know how it works. All you have to do is compare private mall cops with real public funded police. Mall cops are cheap jamokes off the street while real police are trained indirectly through fbi programs.....

    Now go ahead and whine about the fbi, our nation’s top police force....public service is almost always superior to private...and it’s cheaper. Everyother country that does it, proves it. But, keep your out dated ideas Hannity fans.
     
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    8,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Much offense you seem to take at the notion that I merely not be forced to participate in the healthcare scam... what are you so worried about?

    And the FBI is a terrible comparison. They are niche law enforcement, comparable to brain or heart surgeons in the medical field. But so far as I know, no one is advocating to only subsidize complicated major surgery, but rather everything. Surely you've seen your fair share of fat, slobbish beat cops who are relegated to handing out speeding tickets and running off loiterers... nationalized medicine will put their HCP equivalent at your bedside.
     
  6. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol....nitch ? That’s funny/ ill informed . You obviously know nothing about fbi training programs. I guarantee I’m more familiar with the fbi which co sponsors training available to every govt police force in the country. I don’t want to hear crapolla about ligit law enforcement compared to private rent a cops. There is no comparisons here .
    https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-training-assistance-is-afforded-local-law-enforcement-officers

    I really don’t care that some prefer to spend much more to support golf tournaments through private insurance, that’s their choice. HC is cheaper and more effective in every country that has UHC in the free world; case closed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    9,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, you're arguing that that Medicare exhausting it's funding is "false news?" You better take that up with the Medicare Trustees...

    The estimated depletion date for the HI trust fund is 2026, 3 years earlier than in last year’s report.


    As for the public option, did you know there is already a premium supported public option? Can you guess what the premium costs are?
     
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    9,033
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Could you source that?
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    8,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I spend about $200 a year on professional HC. Do you think your preferred method will cost me that or less?

    Many public LE departments do not make use of the FBI's services. And some private firms do. Your equation of all LE to FBi is just as disingenuous as your equation of all security to mall cops.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  10. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pretty close to the French system, which has been rated as the best in the world. They have a medicare-for-all public insurance that everybody gets, with private delivery but costs are controlled (at least moreso than here) by the power of the main payer as public insurance. Main difference is it's more comprehensive than what you describe - basically all care that is proven to be effective (no experimental treatments, unless they're being paid for by clinical trials). And then if people want premium healthcare, they can pay for a supplemental private plan.

    Of course if it happened here, the republicans would get bought by the drug companies and propose an amendment that disallows the public payer from negotiating for better prices - like they did with medicare. The corruption of our system makes it hard to find a cost-effective solution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    4,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your concern is that we might waste taxpayer money paying for one treatment when the patient will still die because the government system would not cover another treatment that patient also needed?
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seriously, for example.....Most elderly people, and many who are not, with diabetes have a plethora of problems, all life threatening. All problems may need intervention and treatment, even when seen with a minor related problem. You’re over your head. Refrain from commenting about stuff you know little about. Medicare is very comprehensive. It’s more so then private insurance before Obamacare addressed the inadequacies of private healthcare.....
    But, keep drinking the Moscow Mitch coolaid.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    4,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be one of those on the Left who is unwilling to compromise, like I made reference to in the opening post.
    And so you may get nothing...
     
  14. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Compromise with a faction that doesn’t believe in science and thinks AGW is a Chinese hoax, cavorts white supremest?
    With a president who says one thing one day and the opposite the next ?

    Nope.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    4,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you would rather refuse to go along with a plan that could give you 40 percent of what you want, and instead you are holding out to get the entire enchilada?
     
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I really don’t know what you’re talking about. A compromise sounds like......
    40% can have access to universal healthcare, only 40% of the pollution dealing with AGW is stopped, and 40% of the country has stronger gun laws

    So for example, 60% of the lakes, streams and nations fresh water are polluted

    doesn’t sound like a worth while compromise.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    4,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, 100% of people can have access to partial 40% patchwork healthcare.

    It would be "universal" healthcare, but it would be far from "comprehensive" healthcare.
    Everyone would have it, but it would not cover ever treatment in every situation.

    That would seem to be better than the current situation, would you agree?
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  18. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.....not for those already in Medicare.
    Patchwork healthcare ? If I believed in patchwork healthcare, they’d cart me off to the loonie bin. You’re saying things like eye glasses is 60% of healthcare costs while things like heart attacks are only 40%. If I did math in economics like that, we’d have 9-10 recessions. Come to figure it out, Republicans do.
    That statement is a perfect example why I could NEVER compromise with republicans on healthcare,

    medicare for all is CHEAPER then what we do now.
     
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Medicare covers 80% of the costs. Every country that has universal coverage pays less over capita then we do......
    Why compromise back to 40%


    And this is your compromise ?
    This is just a sample of why I would not compromise....it seems like I’d be going fking backwards.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    13,727
    Likes Received:
    4,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My proposal had nothing to do with rolling back Medicare. I don't know where you get that notion from.
     
  21. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    14,050
    Likes Received:
    2,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Medicare for all......is cheaper and saves more lives then your proposal.
    Ha ha....40% . I value lives, all lives. I get that full healthcare coverage for everyone means cheaper cost for everyone, especially when it comes time to combat infectious diseases.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  22. StarFox

    StarFox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    1,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have had an idea for more than 30 years, I've testified before committees I've written letters, on and on, and get nowhere. Neither party was interested because it did not buy votes. In a nut shell: A public / private partnership, whereas the government takes on the risk of the first $2500 (more or less) per person and you buy insurance for expenses beyond that. Millions and millions of people go years without having any medical expenses so it is not like the government would be out 350,000,000 x $2500. I personally went almost 60 years without seeing the inside of a hospital, I would have cost the government nothing all that time. I sell health insurance and if I had a nickel for every time a person complained about their premiums and said "I never see a doctor" I'd be as rich as Bernie.

    Insurance companies would compete for business. Have guarantee issue plans but allow underwriting so people with healthy lifestyles can qualify for premium discounts and to satisfy all the perpetual whiners out there, limit the discount so the smokers and obese and alcoholics won't feel discriminated against, (as well they should be if they want me to pay their premiums) Or switch it up and have the government step in when claims reach a certain level such as $50,000 per person, the insurance companies would reduce their rates by as much as 65% overnight.

    We had a system in Colorado for years in group insurance, guarantee issue, cover pre ex, long before Obama ever started accepting bribes in Illinois politics, we could ask medical questions on apps and offer up to a 25% rate discount or a 10% load. I had one group, one client only that ever got the 10% load, 85% of my clients received a 10% or more discount. I had 9 clients with the full 25% discount. Along comes the ACA, by law everyone lost their discount, rates went up 20% to 35% overnight in addition to the lost discount. Some clients rates increased 65%.
    Thank you Obama. Oh and for worse coverage.

    Of course there are a lot of details I don't go in to however when I tried talking to democrat politicians it was wah wah wah, we don't want businesses and evil insurance companies involved. Republicans were wah wah wah we don't want government involved.
     

Share This Page