Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Serious question on health care
Comments
-
Speaking as someone that has seen extremely wealthy families brought low by medical costs, I'd say you're all fucked unless we change the fundamental basis of our healthcare system.
Watching an elder that is already sick live with the added stress of knowing how long they can afford to live is about as ugly as this life gets.
We can do better. -
1. UK wait times are often shorter than the US.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
2. Dental insurance isn't included in the UK. -
This is from your own link:HoustonHusky said:
Yes, the GAO is all about conjecture, while Wikipedia citations are the gold standard. And yes, there is a lot more in overbilling...the 10-20% is just direct fraud of paying for services never rendered (fake companies, non-existent patients, etc). And only an idiot like you would think a private company would survive doing the same.2001400ex said:
Where do you see 10-20% fraud in those articles? I see conjecture. And I see "questionable" meaning the same as fraud. No, just because something is questionable doesn't mean it's fraud. And you act like there's no fraud with insurance companies. You also realize that if you read about one fraud, it's general over many years.HoustonHusky said:
You quote Wikipedia (which quotes close to 10% that an audit found)...I'll reference the GAO, govt auditors, and Eric Holder (Obama's corrupt AG...who should know since the clinic his wife was part owner in got shut down for fraud):2001400ex said:
It's not 10-20%.HoustonHusky said:
I'm sure the estimated direct 10-20% direct fraud of the top of Medicaid (that excludes the additional waste in the program itself) would happen to any private company.2001400ex said:
Government waste < corporate waste plus corporate profits plus administrative waste.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
HTH
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_fraud
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/10/06/Audit-Uncovers-1247-B-Overpayments-and-Fraud-Medicare-and-Medicaid
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/2/#65d3beaf5c67
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603078-why-thieves-love-americas-health-care-system-272-billion-swindle
HondoFS...have to admire you. You are so sure of what you believe, facts be damned, and you won't let simple matters of reality get in your way. It's...I have no clue how to describe it.
Lemming.
You literally have to be the dumbest, most blinded person I have run across...it is truly amazing. Keep working that speed limit IQ of yours...
10% is the high number for Medicare/Medicaid, which means $174B of fraud is coming from the private sector.
"...estimated that fraud (and the extra rules and inspections required to fight it) added as much as $98 billion, or roughly 10%, to annual Medicare and Medicaid spending—and up to $272 billion across the entire health system."
$98B of fraud from $1.191T in spending for care/aid = 8.2%
$174B of fraud from $1.072T in spending for private insurance = 16.2%
Insurance fraud makes up 10% of losses for property/casualty insurance companies. Somehow they still exist. -
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?dhdawg said:
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
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. -
My friends say differently and have surgery done in the US for cash because the waits are so long. Seeing a specialist doesn't get yourid surgery done.UWhuskytskeet said:
1. UK wait times are often shorter than the US.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
2. Dental insurance isn't included in the UK.
Of course they don't have dental have you actually seen those snaggletooth baits? I'll tryti and send a PM explaining the humor in my posts. -
Sledog has thousands of foreign friends who have come to the US for medical procedures.
lol
-
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?dhdawg said:
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
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.
keep being dumb
-
Harvard is your source?dhdawg said:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?dhdawg said:
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
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.
keep being dumb -
http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Harvard is your source?dhdawg said:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?dhdawg said:
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
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.
keep being dumb -
Fake linkUWhuskytskeet said:
http://news.trumpuniversity.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Harvard is your source?dhdawg said:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/Sledog said:
Bullshit. Pure simple bullshit. No emergency room turns people away. It's the law. Where's your list of the dead?dhdawg said:
We're not even talking about a system like Canada or England. a multi tiered system like france or Germany is superior.Sledog said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
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.HoustonHusky said:
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.2001400ex said:
And the explanation is....HoustonHusky said:
Math is hard for morons.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.
Now compare that to what current Medicare or Medicaid actually spends per person.
Speed limit...
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.
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.
"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.
Yes socialized English dentistry is an excellent example of a government doing great things!things!
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.
keep being dumb
