"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

What I don’t understand is if people want real deal socialized health care they don’t join an existing private cost sharing program or start one more to their lifestyle.

At the bottom of all this is a love of Godvernment because if reasonably priced socialized health care is what you want, it’s there for the taking.

Might take a little effort to create ones satisfactory to different lifestyles but it could be done.

And yes, I know what the objections are. The objections just demonstrate how forced socialized medicine takes advantage of the responsible while rewarding the irresponsible.

 

Yeah it's the tax payer. They know that and that's why they ask.

So this includes forfeit of your private insurance? Sounds like a **** deal.

no they haven't because paying for private insurance and being able to pay for more than the average isn't an obligation like tax is.

No they also cite that people will be ****ed out of their private insurance for crappy government care. It doesn't sound good at all.

No it's a trap. You would just be forced to pay for shitty health Care. Likely a lot more than is projected because you have to afford the extremely inefficient broken apparatus that is government bureaucracy.

So you probably had about 200 to 300 billion dollars on top of whatever it is.

The government's absolutely sucks at everything I do they're the worst most inefficient incompetent bumbling mess of retardsI've ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with. And the reason why it's because they don't have to be good at anything because nobody competes with them.

This is why people are against us the government costs way too much and provides the absolute worst service they possibly can.

Seems stupid to me to throw away our vest knowledge in medicine and efficiency. But hey I guess if you get your insurance on the backs of everyone else that works it doesn't matter right. Shity inefficient broken Healthcare is better than having to pay for it for yourself right?

 

I'm not sure where you went wrong. But have a look at this:
Current spending on healthcare in the US per year.
$3.5 trillion, or about $11,000 per person.
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/02/15/health-care-spending
Cost of Medicare for a 65 year old.
About $6500. Less for younger people.

Yuge savings.

 

Australia doing it cheaper does not negate anything I've said.
To answer your question though, I'm not sure what the reason for this would be. Socialized programs seem to do well in small homogenous nations. The population of your entire country is half the population of California. We also have health problems like obesity and diabetes that are at epidemic levels. I imagine the average American would require a lot more health care to be healthy than your average Aussie would.
There are a lot of variables to account for.

 

I see the problem. It's with the assumption you can get decent insurance for $380 a month.

 

I agree with you on all or almost all issues.

Life with Disability -- even a "minor" condition such as Moderate Autism can consist of Suffering.

My Moderate Depression is a product of Moderate Autism.

 

There is no conflict here.
My numbers came from the government website CMS.gov. Your numbers appear to be from something called the Kaiser Family Foundation. Also if you look at the bottom of your graph, the sample for this graph was 5% of a study about chronic conditions. Is that a lot or a little? We don't know because we don't know what the total sample size was. What we do know is that your numbers are based on findings about chronic conditions. Elderly people also have acute conditions which could account for the difference in numbers.

 

Thank G-d my parents help me with my condition. Tens of millions of people with Disability have no help. Many people use drugs as a result of Very Severe Depression. Given my Moderate Depression, I can not imagine what Severe Depression is like.

 

The vast majority of people with disability can not prove their condition.

 

Yep. Been dealing with them for decades and the above is dead on. How people think that the government will not utterly F up the U.S. healthcare system in the same way the incompetent *******s F up everything they touch is beyond me.

 

It is just an average of what people spend for an individual. For a family of 4 I think it is about 800. I used only the individual rates to give his argument the best case possible. In reality, since a family of 4 gets insurance cheaper per individual, there would be even more money needed to make up the deficit from the plan proposed ni the OP.

 

You know what? I'll pay for it. Just send me the bill... had a good week.

 

I wasn't going to ask, but if you could that would really help us out.

 

It's the least I can do, will just have to cut back on some pay per view and sell some of my Beanie Baby collection.

 

Ah! Bunkum!

If you think you can leech off if a government run system I hav some bad news for you

Meanwhile a healthy workforce is a productive workforce

 

Mate the UK, Canada and just about every other OECD country has nationalised health care

Even Cuba has it

ALL pay less for health care and most have longer life spans. Lower infant and maternal mortality and a populace that will vote out any bastard wanting to scrap the system

 

Because of course the private system is so much better

 

Of course the elephant in the room with American health care is the amount spent on gunshot injuries

 

Yeah, I think it is 5% of the nearly 60 million on Medicare - about 3 million people. So I don't think that is the problem.
Chronic conditions is just the name of their data warehouse.
I think the other difficulty with your numbers is they use the average Medicare cost. It is much higher than the younger age groups.

 

The problem I'm having with it is that it is inconsistent with your CMS data.

U.S. health care spending increased 4.3 percent to reach $3.3 trillion, or $10,348 per person in 2016. Health care spending growth decelerated in 2016 after the initial impacts of ACA coverage expansions and strong retail prescription drug spending growth in 2014 and 2015. The overall share of gross domestic product (GDP) related to health care spending was 17.9 percent in 2016, up from 17.7 percent in 2015.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...onalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf

 

What government run system?

 

All relatively small and homogeneous which I did mention before. I am aware of their existence. I get the line of thinking, I really do. If it works for 10 people, then it should work for 100 people. I get it. But it doesn't work out that way here. We have 320 million people that we know about with another possible 20-30 million here illegally. The bureaucracy needed to support this alone would be staggering and terrible. Even medicare under its current burden is terrible. And they account for so much of medical spending, but they pay less than anyone to the provider. Your Doctor gets about $30 to see you. So where is all that money going? To the bureaucracy. To compliance officers and policy groups. You may have large things covered before a certain age, but your routine care and preventative care would suffer a lot, meaning you may need more of that high priced care than you would have otherwise. And all of this would be expensive. And when your doctor gets $30 to see you, he passes on the cost to everyone else. Who is he going to pass to the costs off onto if everyone has the same terrible insurance? If you want to create a new agency and make it something other than medicare, you may find a way to make this work somehow, but you will not make medicare for all seem like a good idea. The agency is either corrupt or horribly inefficient. Whether it is paying your doctor so little that he will try to see you and get away as fast as possible, or sending you for PT and cheap alternatives when you clearly need an MRI but their protocol says to exhaust conservative treatment no matter what, it will be worse care.

As for the standard of medicine, we have some of the finest facilities and talent in the world. As we are not a small homogenous country, national averages like this can be misleading. If you break down our population by race a different picture of the country emerges. Look at one of those heat maps for diabetes for example, and then look at map for black people. Those are very similar maps. When 13-15% of the population is hyper prone to get diabetes or hypertension, that is going to make your entire nation look less healthy. There are numerous factors like this. You could also compare the west to the south and this would likely look like 2 different nations.

 

I do not see the inconsistency. 3.3 trillion over ten years is 33 trillion. That is where the cost of medicare for all is coming from I believe. That would equate to approximately 100,000 per person, divided by 10, would be 10,000 per person per year. This figure is drawn from all current public and private expenditures. If you make them all public expense, then that is how much it costs the public which means you now have a deficit. The solution proposed in the OP was to simply take the insurance premiums being paid now, and pay those into medicare. I explained why that wouldn't actually cover the deficit because the money your insurance company pays your doctor doesn't come from your premiums, it comes from the companies investments and stocks. Since the office of medicaid does not have investments or stocks, that money can not be applied toward the deficit. Totally consistent since the first post.
The only other thing I can think of that you might be getting hung up on are my numbers for private insurance. After rechecking it looks like it varies wildly by state but 200-400 seems to be about the average rate for an individual.
If you look at the original CMS.gov at the section labeled historical NHE 2016, you will see that insurance company spending was up to 34% of the total NHE. That is 34% of a really huge number and it would evaporate from the equation. There has to be something in place to make up that money. Then there are the people with no insurance at all, so you have to come up with 10,000 per person per year for millions of people.
If you look at the next section about future projections labeled projected NHE 2017-, you would see that these numbers are all expected to grow for the foreseeable future, meaning an increased future obligation on the books in perpetuity. That money must come from somewhere, and it won't be your pittance of an insurance premium.

 

True dat.
Nope. Nope.

 

Communism!

Stalin will rise from the dead & eat my granny's brains!!!!!