Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Serious question on health care

124»

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.

    Math is hard for morons.
    And the explanation is....
    The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.

    Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.

    Speed limit...
    You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.

    image

    I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.

    Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
    You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.

    That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.

    I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
    There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.

    image

    "I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."


    Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
    Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.

    Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
    We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.

    But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.

    tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
    Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    keep being dumb
    Harvard is your source?
    http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    Fake link
    You should PM @IrishDawg22
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,950
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.

    Math is hard for morons.
    And the explanation is....
    The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.

    Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.

    Speed limit...
    You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.

    image

    I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.

    Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
    You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.

    That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.

    I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
    There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.

    image

    "I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."


    Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
    Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.

    Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
    We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.

    But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.

    tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
    Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    keep being dumb
    Harvard is your source?
    http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    Fake link
    Fine. Here's a real one you geriatric fuck.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 33,874 Standard Supporter

    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.

    Math is hard for morons.
    And the explanation is....
    The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.

    Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.

    Speed limit...
    You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.

    image

    I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.

    Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
    You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.

    That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.

    I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
    There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.

    image

    "I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."


    Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
    Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.

    Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
    We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.

    But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.

    tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
    Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    keep being dumb
    Harvard is your source?
    http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    Fake link
    Fine. Here's a real one you geriatric fuck.
    Stop hanging out with Sven. He's too old for you.
  • Mosster47Mosster47 Member Posts: 6,246
    Sledog said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    dhdawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Why not just open Medicare to everyone and change the tax to like 6%. You can still buy supplemental insurance if you choose. Keep the private/non profit hospitals and everything else the same. Forget all these stupid rules, tax cuts, insurance subsidies, premiums, etc.

    Math is hard for morons.
    And the explanation is....
    The median household income is ~$50k and the average household has 2.6 people. That means you somehow think a govt run healthcare system that covers everything Medicare/Medicaid covers will cost a touch over $1,000 per person.

    Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.

    Speed limit...
    You are saying he's wrong because ($50k * 6%) / 2.3 = $1,304? Are you having a stroke or do you not know that half the population makes more than $50k? One guy making $500k is worth 10 making $50k. The difference is made up in the top half of the curve.

    image

    I'm still amazed that every one of our peer countries are able to cover their citizens through taxes yet the richest country in the world doesn't think it's possible. We are paying three times as much in many cases.

    Most of the savings come from a reduction in overhead. When everyone is covered you lose almost all your administration costs. Think how much time is wasted between hospitals and insurance companies going back and forth to determine what is covered.
    You are citing household income...as I said and as is the case the upper echelon don't make their money on salary. The make it off of capital gains, dividends from businesses (ask Buffet again why he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...or John Edwards what his overall tax rate was from his law firm), etc. The answer is somewhere between the median ($50k) and mean($70k), but it's heavily tilted towards the median. And it doesn't really matter, because either way you are still WAY off for balancing the numbers.

    That's why even Bernies plan had to raise taxes on all sorts of other things because even that pinko commie socialist idealist was smart enough to know a 6% income tax rate doesn't raise nearly enough money, and even with all his other tax increases he proposed on top of that he still had to assume a massive magical (42%?) increase in efficiency of health care service to make the numbers work...which is comical when you see what the govt spends on Medicare/Medicaid.

    I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist. The other counties don't spend less because of lower overhead...they spend less because they use the monopoly to control spending on all sides, from doctors salaries to access to services to drug prices, access to suing, etc. It is a legit argument on how to limit spending on health care, but it's absolutely nuts to think you can give everyone blanket healthcare that covers everything with no limits and it will magically cost a lot less than what we spend now.
    There is a floor to income at $0. There isn't a ceiling. That's why your argument is dumb. There isn't a normal distribution to income. That's why the mean is greater than the median.

    image

    "I always love the argument that bringing in the government to run anything will lower the overhead costs...it's like thousands of years of reality just don't exist."


    Quit crying wolf about the government. It's about creating a single insurance pool, the only thing that reduces the risk and cost of insurance. Quit ignoring every country where it's been proven to work.
    Yeah go get a quad bypass in Canada or England and see how long they wait.......for you to die before they get around to doing it.

    Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
    We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.

    But... notice how the examples of people who died on waiting lists can be named, because they are rare.

    tens of thousands die here per year because we ration, we just do it by not giving healthcare to those who can't afford it.
    Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    keep being dumb
    Harvard is your source?
    http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
    Fake link
    You never go full retard.
Sign In or Register to comment.