The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: OfTheCross on September 16, 2019, 02:14:57 pm
-
During the General Election this might be a winning point for the Democrats. Presumably this will save money for other social programs like SNAP, since people won't be poor enough to qualify
The Census released its annual income, poverty, and health insurance statistics earlier this week. The summary report shows that 8 million of the nation’s 42.5 million poor people would not be poor if they did not have to pay medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses...
...
What this means is that, by eliminating medical out-of-pocket expenses, Medicare for All would reduce head-count poverty by 19 percent, reduce the overall poverty gap by 22 percent, and increase poor people’s incomes by 29 percent. Indeed, M4A’s elimination of MOOP expenses would contribute more to the incomes of the poor than the earned income tax credit currently does. This makes M4A one of the most potent anti-poverty programs proposed thus far in the current presidential race.
jacobin&census
(https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/medicare-for-all-poverty-out-of-pocket-expenses)
(https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/12162935/Screen-Shot-2019-09-12-at-4.27.51-PM-900x637.png)
-
Why stop with Medicare? We could eliminate the poor all together if we just eliminated the need for them to have to pay for food, gas, housing, clothing, booze, etc. In fact they'll be filthy rich.
Lets shoot the whole Magilla.
-
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
He was spot-on correct and still is!
-
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/medicare-for-all-poverty-out-of-pocket-expenses
-
Why stop with Medicare? We could eliminate the poor all together if we just eliminated the need for them to have to pay for food, gas, housing, clothing, booze, etc. In fact they'll be filthy rich.
Lets shoot the whole Magilla.
Besides, the "poverty rate" would simply be adjusted upwards to accommodate the alleged "improvement." That number is just as fudged as U3 Unemployment.
-
Besides, the "poverty rate" would simply be adjusted upwards to accommodate the alleged "improvement." That number is just as fudged as U3 Unemployment.
No doubt they would if they weren't able to import the real McCoy - this way they get new voters as an added bonus.
-
They don't mean Medicare for all. They mean Medicaid for all. They just use Medicare because it sounds better. The poor are not going to pay $300 a month for a Medicare supplement.
-
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
He was spot-on correct and still is!
Ironic that his England has a form of Universal Health Care
-
Ironic that his England has a form of Universal Health Care
Consider what England was when he was alive compared to today.
-
Consider what England was when he was alive compared to today.
What do you mean?
-
This is a way far-left kook website with no credibility. I'm not sure what the point of posting a mis-information, no-news-involved, opinion piece here.
@OfTheCross?
-
Besides, the "poverty rate" would simply be adjusted upwards to accommodate the alleged "improvement." That number is just as fudged as U3 Unemployment.
That's right... The old 'Let's give everyone a million dollars, and everyone will be rich' argument.
Those that profess such nonsense are ignorant of market forces.
-
What do you mean?
When Churchill was in his prime England was a world power. Now it's a repository for teeming third world masses yearning for state run healthcare & who's leaders cannot even summon the self confidence to cut the cord with Brussels.
-
This is a way far-left kook website with no credibility. I'm not sure what the point of posting a mis-information, no-news-involved, opinion piece here.
@OfTheCross?
Kook Site is right, I surfed it a bit when I saw this thread.
-
Kook Site is right, I surfed it a bit when I saw this thread.
I'd run across it a while back, I think in relation to a pro anti-AntiFa story.
-
They don't mean Medicare for all. They mean Medicaid for all. They just use Medicare because it sounds better. The poor are not going to pay $300 a month for a Medicare supplement.
Do democrap voters know there is a monthly fee for Medicare and the program is still is financial trouble? Of course not. Do they know Medicare recipients pay for a private supplement premium that will become illegal under the democommie's plan? Of course not. They know nothing and they vote.
-
This is a way far-left kook website with no credibility. I'm not sure what the point of posting a mis-information, no-news-involved, opinion piece here.
@OfTheCross?
In other words, a typical post by OfTheCross.
-
Ironic that his England has a form of Universal Health Care
Anyone with money avoids it like the plague and use private doctors. Funny that.
-
This is a way far-left kook website with no credibility. I'm not sure what the point of posting a mis-information, no-news-involved, opinion piece here.
@OfTheCross?
In their own words...
"Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture."
-
They don't mean Medicare for all. They mean Medicaid for all. They just use Medicare because it sounds better. The poor are not going to pay $300 a month for a Medicare supplement.
The premiums of Medicare recipients will skyrocket (those on social security and forced onto it) as well as the payroll taxes for Medicare to pay for those who pay nothing into the system. Nothing more than a grand scheme for wealth distribution; that is until the system is completely broken and we have the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor.
-
Do democrap voters know there is a monthly fee for Medicare and the program is still is financial trouble? Of course not. Do they know Medicare recipients pay for a private supplement premium that will become illegal under the democommie's plan? Of course not. They know nothing and they vote.
Of course not!!! They think it is FREE..FREE...FREEE!!!
-
Of course not!!! They think it is FREE..FREE...FREEE!!!
Rule 1: Nothing is free. Ever.
Rule 2: See rule 1.
-
This is a way far-left kook website with no credibility. I'm not sure what the point of posting a mis-information, no-news-involved, opinion piece here.
@OfTheCross?
Nothing wrong with the integrity of the site.
See here:
https://api.newsguardtech.com/2AB04A9C91318DAD662145C01478A486B24B94D8875D7977D9C554842B52CD79D90D785F9F5BD99FE8D0B0FC4E85D7084756D74F6E798D8D?cid=03afafd0-5c57-48f4-935c-2b0daf9e433b
The info is directly taken from the US Census Bureau and referenced in the article as well.
This week was open enrollment at my job and guess what? They changed providers. I liked my insurance, and I couldn't keep it.
This new provider is not accepted by my Primary Care Physician so I'll get getting to know a new doctor this year as well.
The private insurance system that we have today isn't special. Other countries insure their populations for much less.
-
The private insurance system that we have today isn't special. Other countries insure their populations for much less.
You're right, the private insurance we have today is not great, at least its nothing compared to the private insurance we had in 2009, before the government decided they could make it more 'affordable'.
Over the next several years I experienced at x3 increase in my premium, got dropped by three consecutive insurers as they went out of business and watched the quality of my insurance plummet.
I'm currently in a health care sharing group right now, relatively untouched by the government for the time being, and it actually approaches the quality of insurance I had before Obama f*&^ everything up.
Anyway I'm not totally convinced a total government takeover of the healthcare industry is a really great idea.
-
Poverty is a state of mind.
-
You're right, the private insurance we have today is not great, at least its nothing compared to the private insurance we had in 2009, before the government decided they could make it more 'affordable'.
Over the next several years I experienced at x3 increase in my premium, got dropped by three consecutive insurers as they went out of business and watched the quality of my insurance plummet.
I'm currently in a health care sharing group right now, relatively untouched by the government for the time being, and it actually approaches the quality of insurance I had before Obama f*&^ everything up.
Anyway I'm not totally convinced a total government takeover of the healthcare industry is a really great idea.
It's not an unprecedented idea. In many places it's been in effect for more than 50 years.
Australia 1975
Austria 1967
Bahrain 1957
Belgium 1945
Brunei 1958
Canada 1966
Cyprus 1980
Denmark 1973
Finland 1972
France 1974
Germany 1941
Greece 1983
Hong Kong 1993
Iceland 1990
Ireland 1977
Israel 1995
Italy 1978
Japan 1938
Kuwait 1950
Luxembourg 1973
Netherlands 1966
New Zealand 1938
Norway 1912
Portugal 1979
Singapore 1993
Slovenia 1972
South Korea 1988
Spain 1986
Sweden 1955
Switzerland 1994
United Arab Emirates 1971
United Kingdom 1948
table (https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm)
-
You're right, the private insurance we have today is not great, at least its nothing compared to the private insurance we had in 2009, before the government decided they could make it more 'affordable'.
Over the next several years I experienced at x3 increase in my premium, got dropped by three consecutive insurers as they went out of business and watched the quality of my insurance plummet.
I'm currently in a health care sharing group right now, relatively untouched by the government for the time being, and it actually approaches the quality of insurance I had before Obama f*&^ everything up.
Anyway I'm not totally convinced a total government takeover of the healthcare industry is a really great idea.
I'm 100% convinced that it's a terrible idea.
-
I'm 100% convinced that it's a terrible idea.
I really like my private insurance and want to keep my doctors!
-
It's not an unprecedented idea. In many places it's been in effect for more than 50 years.
Australia 1975
Austria 1967
Bahrain 1957
Belgium 1945
Brunei 1958
Canada 1966
Cyprus 1980
Denmark 1973
Finland 1972
France 1974
Germany 1941
Greece 1983
Hong Kong 1993
Iceland 1990
Ireland 1977
Israel 1995
Italy 1978
Japan 1938
Kuwait 1950
Luxembourg 1973
Netherlands 1966
New Zealand 1938
Norway 1912
Portugal 1979
Singapore 1993
Slovenia 1972
South Korea 1988
Spain 1986
Sweden 1955
Switzerland 1994
United Arab Emirates 1971
United Kingdom 1948
table (https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm)
Are you sure you want the USA to emulate Slovenia and Kuwait? Bahrain? Is that the case you are making here? Because if it is, it's a notion even more idiotic than I first thought.
This is not a country that follows, it leads.
-
Are you sure you want the USA to emulate Slovenia and Kuwait? Bahrain? Is that the case you are making here? Because if it is, it's a notion even more idiotic than I first thought.
This is not a country that follows, it leads.
Liberals always what to change America into something less than great.
-
Liberals always what to change America into something less than great.
Yup! America is too great, and must be taken down a couple of pegs. This was Obastard's core governing philosophy.
-
Are you sure you want the USA to emulate Slovenia and Kuwait? Bahrain? Is that the case you are making here? Because if it is, it's a notion even more idiotic than I first thought.
This is not a country that follows, it leads.
We're currently leaders in prescription drug prices and medical expenses :patriot:
-
Yea, I want the Fed Gov to control $hit when they can't even keep a guy on suicide watch locked in their jail, alive.
Besides:
TTIUWP
(https://noirwhale.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/femme-fatale-lauren-bacall-bogiesbaby-tumblr.jpg?w=500&h=627)
-
We're currently leaders in prescription drug prices and medical expenses :patriot:
I'll bet you didn't even take five minutes between hearing that, and bringing that non-thought argument to TBR from DU or KOS, or whatever third-world shithole you got it from.
Tell me...why do you suppose the cost of medicaations "cost more" in the US? Hmmm?
-
Ironic that his England has a form of Universal Health Care
Then why don't YOU make it your bleeding heart mission, to move all those poverty case Americans, to England?
Obamacare was supposed to solve America's uninsured problems.
-
Do democrap voters know there is a monthly fee for Medicare and the program is still is financial trouble? Of course not. Do they know Medicare recipients pay for a private supplement premium that will become illegal under the democommie's plan? Of course not. They know nothing and they vote.
Not to mention that most current medicare beneficiaries, paid for decades via payroll deductions.
And there were so many lies about Obamacare, I would never believe a word from the government.
-
I'll bet you didn't even take five minutes between hearing that, and bringing that non-thought argument to TBR from DU or KOS, or whatever third-world shithole you got it from.
Tell me...why do you suppose the cost of medicaations "cost more" in the US? Hmmm?
So why not reform the whole system? Where's the President Trump's plan to ameliorate the situation?
-
So why not reform the whole system? Where's the President Trump's plan to ameliorate the situation?
The president shouldn't have to have a plan. In fact, government should keep its sticky fingers out of health care and health insurance. As we have seen, when congress and Obama shoved Obamacare down our throats, it made our health care and its affordability worse. Do you really think the situation will get any better if we have medicare for all.
Government-run health care isn't really about health care. it's about government control over our very lives. Government in effect decides who lives and who dies. In Canada and the UK, there are waiting lists for treatment. Some people, especially the elderly, are rejected for treatment entirely because they are too old or whatever and some government bureaucrat or bureaucrats decided these patients are not worth spending money on to treat. When you surrender your health care decisions to the government, you are giving it the power to decide whether you should live or die.
I once worked with a woman from England. Her parents and siblings still live there. One day she was in the ladies room crying, so I asked her what was wrong. She explained her father desperately needed heart surgery, but he had been put on a waiting list and wasn't moving up. Meanwhile, he was getting weaker and my coworker was afraid he was going to die before he could get the surgery. Not sure how, but my colleague and her husband were eventually able to bring the father to the US for surgery and last I heard he was doing well. But most patients in the UK who are using the government health system aren't so lucky.
And you should look at Cuba. Years ago, Cuba was reputed to have one of the best health care systems in the world. Now after decades of government control, the health care system is a mess. I was reading a few years ago that antibiotics were in short supply. Something is wrong with your health care system if you can't get antibiotics. This sort of thing is what happens when government gets involved in health care. Health care turns into *bleep*.
It's bad enough that my insurance dictates that I have to use a particular diabetes med that doesn't work instead of one that does. I don't want some federal bean counter making decisions on my health care.
-
The president shouldn't have to have a plan. In fact, government should keep its sticky fingers out of health care and health insurance. As we have seen, when congress and Obama shoved Obamacare down our throats, it made our health care and its affordability worse. Do you really think the situation will get any better if we have medicare for all.
Government-run health care isn't really about health care. it's about government control over our very lives. Government in effect decides who lives and who dies. In Canada and the UK, there are waiting lists for treatment. Some people, especially the elderly, are rejected for treatment entirely because they are too old or whatever and some government bureaucrat or bureaucrats decided these patients are not worth spending money on to treat. When you surrender your health care decisions to the government, you are giving it the power to decide whether you should live or die.
I once worked with a woman from England. Her parents and siblings still live there. One day she was in the ladies room crying, so I asked her what was wrong. She explained her father desperately needed heart surgery, but he had been put on a waiting list and wasn't moving up. Meanwhile, he was getting weaker and my coworker was afraid he was going to die before he could get the surgery. Not sure how, but my colleague and her husband were eventually able to bring the father to the US for surgery and last I heard he was doing well. But most patients in the UK who are using the government health system aren't so lucky.
And you should look at Cuba. Years ago, Cuba was reputed to have one of the best health care systems in the world. Now after decades of government control, the health care system is a mess. I was reading a few years ago that antibiotics were in short supply. Something is wrong with your health care system if you can't get antibiotics. This sort of thing is what happens when government gets involved in health care. Health care turns into *bleep*.
It's bad enough that my insurance dictates that I have to use a particular diabetes med that doesn't work instead of one that does. I don't want some federal bean counter making decisions on my health care.
left alone, the Private Insurance Industry on it's own cost too much and didn't cover many people with serious conditions.
If someone is of the mindset that the government shouldn't be running healthcare, can we at least get a plan to improve the private insurance industry?
The President promised us something better. We're still waiting
-
Of course the GOP should come up with a plan.
The plan should be to preserve what works with the current private, employer-based system while addressing the problem of medical bankruptcies.
One way to do that is to fund with general tax revenue a national program of stop-loss insurance. Stop loss insurance is what larger employers who self-insure their employees' health coverage purchase to address their risk for "shock" claims. They select an attachment point - say $50,000 - and the employer shoulders all costs up to the attachment point, and stop loss insurance covers the rest.
A national program of stop loss insurance could benefit employers big and small, as well as those who must purchase health insurance in the individual market. The premise is simple - address on your own costs up to (say) $50,000. Save for it, purchase first dollar health insurance or any combination in between. Any insurance will be affordable because it won't be responsible after the first $50,000 in claims for the year. Individuals (and the employers who cover them) will gain the security of cost certainty for liability stemming from a medical catastrophe and a host of products in the private marketplace will help folks finance that liability. And for liability over the attachment point, broad-based taxpayer-funded insurance picks up the rest.
This sort of approach is far less expensive than Medicare for All which encourages waste and inefficiency, and preserves the incentives that spur medical innovation and allow Americans to get the care they need without the waiting and rationing that infect countries that fully socialize their medical coverage.
-
left alone, the Private Insurance Industry on it's own cost too much and didn't cover many people with serious conditions.
If someone is of the mindset that the government shouldn't be running healthcare, can we at least get a plan to improve the private insurance industry?
The President promised us something better. We're still waiting
How would you know what would happen if the private insurance industry were left alone? Let's get the government truly out of the way and see what happens.
-
left alone, the Private Insurance Industry on it's own cost too much and didn't cover many people with serious conditions.
Well, for many of us it used to cost a lot less and covered a lot more till Obamacare came along.
If someone is of the mindset that the government shouldn't be running healthcare, can we at least get a plan to improve the private insurance industry?
Funny thing is that the insurance companies thought they would be making big bucks if people were forced to get insurance under Obamacare. Instead they are losing money, principally because they were forced to cover a whole bunch of high-risk subscribers and a number of lowlifes whose health problems are the result of bad decisions (e.g. alcoholism, drugs and so on). Insurance carriers also cover things they didn't used to -- like sex changes. So to make up for the losses, they saddled most of the rest of us with higher priced insurance that doesn't pay for the health care we need.
No, thank you. government has done more than enough to "help" the insurance industry too.
The President promised us something better. We're still waiting
Actually, the president can't do a whole lot besides maybe an executive order or two. For something like this, it would be up to congress. But this, like just about every campaign promise Republicans have been making since at least 2010, has been conveniently forgotten once these bums gained control of both houses of congress and the presidency. Bottom line is the Republicans just aren't interested in the health care situation and while the Democrats may be, whatever they come up with will most likely make things worse.
-
Actually I would be more poor cause I would have to pay higher taxes with MFA.
-
Actually I would be more poor cause I would have to pay higher taxes with MFA.
And, you would get much poorer health care.
-
I have found that when asking a Medicare for All supporter to explain what’s really involved with the current Medicare system, i.e. reimbursements to hospitals and healthcare facilities, how recipients pay for it, ect , I get more repeated talking points than knowledge
But I am for the debate being presented in the public arena with both sides making their case. I am confident that people will reject Medicare for All, especially if it means giving up their private insurance. This is a program being pushed by people who have no idea how the healthcare industry functions and probably wouldn’t even know how to run a basic rummage sale but believe winning an election means they’re best able to plan people’s lives better than those people themselves
-
We're currently leaders in prescription drug prices and medical expenses :patriot:
And access to, innovation of and quality of care.
Cheap drugs aren't worth dry crap if you have to wait 6 months to see a doctor.
-
left alone, the Private Insurance Industry on it's own cost too much and didn't cover many people with serious conditions.
If someone is of the mindset that the government shouldn't be running healthcare, can we at least get a plan to improve the private insurance industry?
The President promised us something better. We're still waiting
Thank God we have people willing to use government force to make those evil capitalist bastards knuckle under. *****rollingeyes*****
You aren't just on the wrong Forum, you are in the wrong Country.
-
We're currently leaders in prescription drug prices and medical expenses :patriot:
Actually, it was when the government got involved in healthcare in the 1960's when healthcare expenses began to skyrocket.
The more the government is involved, the more expensive healthcare costs are.
It's good that you are on record as wanting inaffordable healthcare and years of waiting for critical life-saving procedures.
Thanks for representing the irrational, uncaring left on TBR, @OfTheCross .
It's good to see up close and personal how people who don't care actually think.......
-
Thank God we have people willing to use government force to make those evil capitalist bastards knuckle under. *****rollingeyes*****
You aren't just on the wrong Forum, you are in the wrong Country.
He should go to England where he can't get decent healthcare and has to wait indefinitely for necessary surgeries. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Actually, it was when the government got involved in healthcare in the 1960's when healthcare expenses began to skyrocket.
The more the government is involved, the more expensive healthcare costs are.
It's good that you are on record as wanting inaffordable healthcare and years of waiting for critical life-saving procedures.
Thanks for representing the irrational, uncaring left on TBR, @OfTheCross .
It's good to see up close and personal how people who don't care actually think.......
Not caring is a feature to these people, not a bug. "We're disinterested, therefore more fair."
-
He should go to England where he can't get decent healthcare and has to wait indefinitely for necessary surgeries. *****rollingeyes*****
That's it right there. People who advocate for government run health care, more often than not, don't see the downsides. They point to these countries which offer "free" health care as being wonderful, but I doubt any of them have had any experience with the health care system in those countries.
Yeah I have heard people from these countries say they love their health care. But many of them are like a fella I met from Winnipeg whose only experience had to do with routine care for his small children. He was singing the praises of the Canadian system -- how his kids would get immunizations and routine care for free. But I wonder if his tune would change if, God forbid, one of his kids came down with a catastrophic illness.
When government sticks its big nose into business, the result is always disaster.
-
Actually, it was when the government got involved in healthcare in the 1960's when healthcare expenses began to skyrocket.
The more the government is involved, the more expensive healthcare costs are.
It's good that you are on record as wanting inaffordable healthcare and years of waiting for critical life-saving procedures.
Thanks for representing the irrational, uncaring left on TBR, @OfTheCross .
It's good to see up close and personal how people who don't care actually think.......
I remember my mother paying for care with a check on the way out of the doctor's office. Before the government decided to 'help'.
-
Actually, it was when the government got involved in healthcare in the 1960's when healthcare expenses began to skyrocket.
The more the government is involved, the more expensive healthcare costs are.
It's good that you are on record as wanting inaffordable healthcare and years of waiting for critical life-saving procedures.
Thanks for representing the irrational, uncaring left on TBR, @OfTheCross .
It's good to see up close and personal how people who don't care actually think.......
Also, the Government is going to get involved in our everyday lives. Basically monitor what we eat and what we do if we have MFA.
-
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/medicare-for-all-poverty-out-of-pocket-expenses
Jacobin Magazine...as in a magazine for Jacobin Socialists like Bernie Sanders and the rest of the clown car that is the 2020 Dem hopefuls for President.
Yeah...that's a credible place for accurate effects of Medicare for all. *****rollingeyes*****
-
It's not an unprecedented idea. In many places it's been in effect for more than 50 years.
Australia 1975
Austria 1967
Bahrain 1957
Belgium 1945
Brunei 1958
Canada 1966
Cyprus 1980
Denmark 1973
Finland 1972
France 1974
Germany 1941
Greece 1983
Hong Kong 1993
Iceland 1990
Ireland 1977
Israel 1995
Italy 1978
Japan 1938
Kuwait 1950
Luxembourg 1973
Netherlands 1966
New Zealand 1938
Norway 1912
Portugal 1979
Singapore 1993
Slovenia 1972
South Korea 1988
Spain 1986
Sweden 1955
Switzerland 1994
United Arab Emirates 1971
United Kingdom 1948
table (https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm)
They also have sky high tax rates to pay for their universal health care...which we'd have to implement...something you Socialists always leave out of your propaganda.
On and what's the population of those countries in comparison to the U.S.?
-
Jacobin Magazine...as in a magazine for Jacobin Socialists like Bernie Sanders and the rest of the clown car that is the 2020 Dem hopefuls for President.
Yeah...that's a credible place for accurate effects of Medicare for all. *****rollingeyes*****
"Jacobin," as in "Robespierre."
-
They also have sky high tax rates to pay for their universal health care...which we'd have to implement...something you Socialists always leave out of your propaganda.
On and what's the population of those countries in comparison to the U.S.?
Almost all of those socialist paradises are mono-cultural, too.
-
Actually, it was when the government got involved in healthcare in the 1960's when healthcare expenses began to skyrocket.
The more the government is involved, the more expensive healthcare costs are.
It's good that you are on record as wanting inaffordable healthcare and years of waiting for critical life-saving procedures.
Thanks for representing the irrational, uncaring left on TBR, @OfTheCross .
It's good to see up close and personal how people who don't care actually think.......
:yowsa: pointing-up
When I was growing up the family Dr. was a man by the name of Kenneth Straw. The relationship with my dad was he didn't know exactly WHEN he would get paid but he KNEW that he would get paid as he had never failed to. We didn't run to the Dr. every time someone got a hangnail either. You had to be truly sick or your life otherwise in danger. Most minor medical emergencies were handled right at home in those days.
-
"Jacobin," as in "Robespierre."
No I understand the association with Robespierre...but in this case it has to do with Jacobin Socialism.
Jacobin
https://www.jacobinmag.com (https://www.jacobinmag.com)
Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.
-
Almost all of those socialist paradises are mono-cultural, too.
Especially the Scandinavian countries that Socialists like OTC and Bernie Sanders are so fond of.
Primarily white...closed borders...very few if any people allowed to immigrate their from other countries.
-
No I understand the association with Robespierre...but in this case it has to do with Jacobin Socialism.
The reason for being may have been updated, but the thirst for blood has not. The poster of this Topic would have no problem wheeling out a Guillotine if that would help tamp down our objections to his socialist paradise.
-
That's it right there. People who advocate for government run health care, more often than not, don't see the downsides. They point to these countries which offer "free" health care as being wonderful, but I doubt any of them have had any experience with the health care system in those countries.
Yeah I have heard people from these countries say they love their health care. But many of them are like a fella I met from Winnipeg whose only experience had to do with routine care for his small children. He was singing the praises of the Canadian system -- how his kids would get immunizations and routine care for free. But I wonder if his tune would change if, God forbid, one of his kids came down with a catastrophic illness.
When government sticks its big nose into business, the result is always disaster.
Or even non-catastrophic. We have friends (actually relatives of relatives) in Canada whose daughter tore her ACL playing HS soccer.
Because of socialized medicine in Canada it was months before they could do a thing about it, and she suffered.
Here in America, she would have been cared for immediately and recovered.
Socialized healthcare is inefficient, and downright dangerous.
Anyone who advocates it is either ignorant or nuts.
-
:yowsa: pointing-up
When I was growing up the family Dr. was a man by the name of Kenneth Straw. The relationship with my dad was he didn't know exactly WHEN he would get paid but he KNEW that he would get paid as he had never failed to. We didn't run to the Dr. every time someone got a hangnail either. You had to be truly sick or your life otherwise in danger. Most minor medical emergencies were handled right at home in those days.
Exactly.
Any of us who remember medical care before the government got it’s filthy fingers in it knows the damage it has done.
-
The Fallacy of Medicare for All
By Bill George
April 24, 2019
...While offering all U.S. citizens free health care using a single-payer system sounds attractive as a political talking point, actually implementing Medicare for All would require a complex restructuring of a multi-trillion dollar industry. The likely result? A disaster.
Covering all Americans under Medicare for All could potentially add another 189 million people to the government’s payrolls, which would swamp the current government approval and payment system—especially since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require prior approval for many medical tests and procedures. More importantly, the Medicare and Medicaid payment system is almost entirely based on fee for service, wherein hospitals, physicians, and pharmaceutical dispensers are paid for services rendered. Naturally, this can incentivize doctors and hospitals to require more office visits, do more procedures, and conduct more tests to get paid more.
These perverse incentives are exacerbated by underpayment schedules in which Medicare reimburses well below hospital costs. In 2017, Medicare and Medicare reimbursement was $76.8 billion below cost and hospitals provided an additional $38.4 billion in uncompensated care. These underpayments force hospitals to increase costs to patients covered by commercial insurance. This cost-shifting distorts the billing system and places an unnecessary cost burden on non-government patients and their employers.
Medicare for All proposes to eliminate the entire commercial insurance industry—putting 538,600 people out of work. The impact on the financial stability of hospitals and doctors would be staggering. A Navigant study found that a typical mid-sized non-profit hospital system would have a net loss of 22% under the plan. I estimate that half of all hospitals would go out of business, especially smaller hospitals in rural areas.
The elimination of existing systems would be offset by a large increase in government payrolls. A Mercatus Center study estimated that Medicare for All would cost the federal government around $32 trillion. These estimates do not include likely increases in Medicare and Medicaid rates required to lessen losses to hospitals and doctors.
Who will pay for these enormous costs? The federal government cannot cover them without new revenue, as the current U.S. debt is already $22 trillion, with the annual deficit exceeding $1 trillion per year in 2020 and beyond. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Medicare for All would require tripling of payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes. The Mercatus Center, however, found that “doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan.â€...
https://fortune.com/2019/04/24/medicare-for-all-plan-costs/
-
The reason for being may have been updated, but the thirst for blood has not. The poster of this Topic would have no problem wheeling out a Guillotine if that would help tamp down our objections to his socialist paradise.
Of that I have no doubt.
-
The Costs of Medicare for All Are Rising Already
Charles Blahous
August 26, 2019 Health Care
After my study of the costs of Medicare for All (M4A) was published last July, a fierce debate erupted over whether M4A, while dramatically increasing the costs borne by federal taxpayers, might nevertheless reduce total U.S. health expenditures. Now, just one year after my findings, we have substantial additional evidence that M4A would further increase, not reduce, national health spending.
To be clear, no one on either side of this debate questioned my central finding that M4A would increase federal costs by an unprecedented amount, likely between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion over 10 years—a federal tab so large that even doubling all projected federal individual and corporate income taxes couldn’t finance it. Yet M4A advocates continued to believe that it could bring national health spending down. That’s become substantially more difficult to argue in light of subsequent events.
....
Subsequent to these studies, but prior to mine, Sen. Sanders introduced his M4A bill. That bill specified that health provider payment rates under M4A would be determined by the same methods used to set Medicare payment rates, which would average about 40% less than private insurance rates over the first 10 years of M4A.
Obviously, if one assumes that payments for all health treatments now covered by private insurance are reduced by about 40%, such a dramatic cost-reduction assumption would likely lead to the conclusion that total health spending would decline. My study duly reported the numbers that would derive from this cost-saving assumption but at the same time noted that “it is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates,†and that they should be regarded as a “lower bound.†For one thing, federal lawmakers have historically balked at implementing provider payment reductions much smaller and less sudden than those. For another, dramatically reducing provider payments (and thus health care supply) at the same time that M4A markedly increases the demand for health services would almost certainly disrupt Americans’ timely access to quality health care, precipitating unpredictable political fallout.
Although my study was clear that the actual costs of M4A would likely be substantially higher than they would be under the aggressive assumption that all provider payments are suddenly cut to Medicare rates, mischaracterizations of my conclusions proliferated. Some M4A advocates wrote (and continue to write) that my study concluded that M4A would reduce national health spending, even though my study did not say this, and despite various Fact Checkers calling out this claim as a distortion....
https://economics21.org/medicare-for-all-costs-rising-already
-
The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System
Charles Blahous
MERCATUS WORKING PAPER
All studies in the Mercatus Working Paper series have followed a rigorous process of academic evaluation,
including (except where otherwise noted) at least one double-blind peer review. Working Papers present an
author’s provisional findings, which, upon further consideration and revision, are likely to be republished in an
academic journal. The opinions expressed in Mercatus Working Papers are the authors’ and do not represent
official positions of the Mercatus Center or George Mason University...
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf (https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf)
Downloads a .pdf of the paper.
-
Justin Haskins: How much would 'Medicare-for-all' REALLY cost the middle class? The answer is shocking
By Justin Haskins | Fox News
...
During the most recent round of Democratic presidential debates, nearly all the leading candidates reiterated their commitment to transition the U.S. health insurance industry to a "Medicare-for-All," government-run model. Some promised to do it more quickly than others, but in the end, the result would be the same: the federal government would control health care within a decade.
Single-payer health care systems are plagued by countless problems that should make them an unattractive option for lawmakers—including rationing, service shortages, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. But perhaps the question most important to many 2020 voters, especially those with full-time jobs, will be how Democrats plan to pay for a gargantuan government takeover of health care, one that would include paying for nearly all health care services, reproductive care, and even pharmaceuticals.
....
However, my new analysis of the costs of single-payer health care, which is based on well-established existing studies from think tanks on both sides of the aisle, shows that tens of millions of American families would end up paying significantly more for health care under a model similar to the "Medicare-for-All" plan proposed by Sanders and endorsed or slightly modified by most of the other leading presidential candidates.
My analysis is straightforward. Using IRS data, I calculated how much in additional taxes each IRS income bracket would need to pay to cover the costs of "Medicare-for-all" in 2022, the first year of full implementation under the legislation previously proposed by Sanders. I assumed Democrats would require tax filers to cover roughly the same proportion of the costs for "Medicare-for-All" as they paid for total federal income tax revenues prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I also assumed businesses would pay $400 billion in new taxes in the first year of implementation, a figure that’s in line with Sanders’ own estimates.
If "Medicare-for-All"’s total cost for the first 10 years is in line with projections produced by the American Action Forum, Mercatus Center, and Urban Institute—roughly $32 trillion to $38 trillion—I estimate 40 million to 60 million households would end up paying more in new taxes than they would receive in health care benefits. Millions of these households would lose more than $10,000 annually, even if it is assumed they would otherwise need to pay a full health insurance deductible and some out-of-pocket expenses under a private health insurance model.
Contrary to the claims made by the leading Democratic candidates, millions of middle-class earners would be hit particularly hard under "Medicare-for-All." For example, filers earning $50,000 to $75,000 would likely need to pay on average $7,773 to $9,171 more in new taxes. Those families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would pay $12,612 to $14,880 more. Most households with more than $100,000 income would pay close to or more than $20,000 in additional taxes.
In many cases, these costs far outweigh the projected average employee contribution for employer-provided health insurance—about $1,965 for individuals and $6,752 for families.
.......
To illustrate this reality, consider the following: Even if the federal government were to confiscate every penny belonging to every single one of the richest 400 Americans—including billionaires like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos—it would only amount to less than $3 trillion, which is less than 10 percent of the cost of single-payer health care in the first 10 years alone, even under the most optimistic scenarios.
"Medicare-for-All" wouldn’t only create significant problems for the health care industry, it would financially decimate millions of middle-class households, many of whom already have access to health insurance plans they like.
...
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/medicare-for-all-middle-class-justin-haskins (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/medicare-for-all-middle-class-justin-haskins)
-
Exactly.
Any of us who remember medical care before the government got it’s filthy fingers in it knows the damage it has done.
:yowsa: and the same is true for everything else they have gotten their filthy fingers in without any authority to do so @musiclady
They are in fact, KILLING the goose that lays the golden eggs! In the year 1900 government at all levels consumed less tha 12% of GDP. After WWII it had risen to 22% and now is beyond 50%. THAT is a real problem!
Government Growth Big-picture Report (http://web.archive.org/web/20040602201751/http://mwhodges.home.att.net/piechart.htm)
-
Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy. These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".
-
Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy. These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".
Very true! Hence my call to try it without all the government interference!
-
Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy. These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".
What's new is the leftists have decided to just say, "Screw it, we're just going to run everybody's health care directly. We can do it better because we're smarter and more altruistic."
-
Very true! Hence my call to try it without all the government interference!
I think his point was, "Hey, the government already regulates it so heavily, what difference does it make if the government just takes it over completely!"
-
The heros of healthcare:
--Hillary Clinton failed but neverwent away
--Romney which led to Obamacare
--CJ Roberts (that GW Bush gift)
John McCain cast the deciding Senate vote to NOT kill Obamacare
Obama himself, issued forth lies after lies, about Obamacare. It would eliminate the uninsured, etc.
-
What's new is the leftists have decided to just say, "Screw it, we're just going to run everybody's health care directly. We can do it better because we're smarter and more altruistic."
Perhaps Mr. @Jazzhead would be kind enough to explain to us just why he thinks all that regulation of this market is necessary.
-
Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy. These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".
So much for your alleged belief in individual liberty.
-
I remember my mother paying for care with a check on the way out of the doctor's office. Before the government decided to 'help'.
That's what we did. We paid for healthcare because, before the government got involved, we could AFFORD it.
-
That's what we did. We paid for healthcare because, before the government got involved, we could AFFORD it.
Exactly. Not only that I remember my parents being able to put a call into the doc and he would suggest a treatment that could be done at home or recommend something over the counter or a home remedy -- I also remember a couple of house calls...AND we rarely went to the doc's. Nowadays people go in for the common cold, seasonal allergies, scrapes, bruises, you name it. The docs then write scrips that are worthless and most often with time the body heals itself. Now we have to worry more about the side affects of the drugs prescribed more so than the original ailment. In addition we are now faced with increased deadly viruses and different strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
-
Exactly. Not only that I remember my parents being able to put a call into the doc and he would suggest a treatment that could be done at home or recommend something over the counter or a home remedy -- I also remember a couple of house calls...AND we rarely went to the doc's. Nowadays people go in for the common cold, seasonal allergies, scrapes, bruises, you name it. The docs then write scrips that are worthless and most often with time the body heals itself. Now we have to worry more about the side affects of the drugs prescribed more so than the original ailment. In addition we are now faced with increased deadly viruses and different strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
I asked my Dad how we paid for health care before Medicare...and the infiltration of the necessity for insurance. His answer was the same as already stated..."We paid cash for it." I can count on the fingers of my hands how often I went to the doctor when I was a kid. Of course, now my BP is high and I'm required to go every 6 months. I couldn't afford that without insurance and a drug plan. My PCP doesn't understand that this is a new thing for me, lol.
-
When I was a lass, our family doctor was the stereotypical image of a small town doctor. He even made house calls -- a concept that was dying back then. Doc was everything -- primary doctor, ob/gyn, cardiologist, pediatrician, you name it. There were no specialists back then. And when he treated you, the fee was $10. No extras for immunizations, xrays, bloodwork or whatever. In fact, most of the time there were no tests. Doc could diagnose a patient just by looking him or her over and asking questions. Seldom needed a pharmacy either. When we kids had a cough, Doc gave us his own brew of cough medicine in whatever flavor we preferred (mine was cherry). I don't know what was in it, but it worked.
Doc was paid in cash. If for some reason a patient didn't have the money, Doc would treat him or her for free or tell the patient to pay whenever he could. However, my Dad believed in paying Doc right away, even if it meant Dad had to do without something or having to put off a certain purchase.
The only insurance available back then was for hospitalization. Dad and the rest of us had coverage through Dad's employer. No premiums, copays or deductibles. There was only one hospital bill. No separate charges for tests, pharmacies, consults with other doctors and so forth. Dad had to submit the claim himself, but all he had to do was fill out an insurance form, then send it with the hospital bill to the insurer. No fuss, no muss. The hospital was usually paid promptly; I don't remember any bill ever being questioned or rejected.
Medical care was a lot simpler back then -- and a helluva lot cheaper.
-
Not too many years ago, I worked for two retired docs who did not take insurance. Doing so allowed them to make money while keeping prices affordable. A basic doctor visit was $35. And, they would tell the patient exactly what a procedure or medicine would cost before it was done.
We filled out an insurance form and sent it with patients who then filed them with their insurance companies. Worked like a charm.
-
Medical insurance has traditionally been among the most regulated products you can buy.
Which is why it is also one of the most overpriced and non-flexible products you can buy.
These calls to get the government out of the insurance market don't reflect reality, either now or in the "good old days".
These calls to get the government out of the insurance market reflect a very strong consumer desire to have vastly more options as lower prices. As a consumer, I should be allowed to purchase whatever insurance product I want. If I want to purchase an insurance policy available in a neighboring State that does not consider 25-year-olds as minor dependents and that excludes types of coverage that I do not want (e.g. maternity care, addiction treatment, HIV treatment, etc.), then I shouldn't have to endure a Big Brother federal government that denies me (at the point of a gun) the right to do so.
Again, it comes down to whether or not you love the Constitution. As one who loves it, I find it unconstitutional for a federal government to prohibit interstate commerce when it comes to insurance, yet still regulates intrastate commerce as if it is interstate. Clearly, you do not see it this way. With you, the Constitution always takes a back seat to what you want.
-
During the General Election this might be a winning point for the Democrats. Presumably this will save money for other social programs like SNAP, since people won't be poor enough to qualify
How is giving out more free stuff going to save money? And how is artificially increasing demand (which will artificially increase prices) going to lower the cost of health care?
-
I go to an MD who works out of his house. At least twice a year for lab work. Average cost, with lab, is about $55 per visit. He does house calls. Doesn't take insurance.
He wrote a book. And yes, I have a signed copy. And no, I am not trying to sell his book. You get the gist from the 3,000-word description.
Dr, James Brook.
The High Price of Socialized Medicine: A History of Government Meddling in American Health Care, and How a Free Market Would Solve Our Problems
Here is the book description, in full, from Amazon.
American health care is so expensive because of unrestrained free markets, right? Dr. Brook used to think so, until he learned the truth in his medical training. He was an unabashed supporter of socialized medicine, until he saw what socialism was doing to the people it was supposed to be helping, and to the country as a whole. He changed his tune completely during medical school, and opened a family practice that operates as closely to free market principles as possible. The result? Affordable, thorough care brought to those people that the main-stream media say have “no access to health care.†This book explains what Dr. Brook learned that changed his attitude. It is the result of his years of training and experience as a doctor, and extensive research. How would we know what a free market would do to health care? We have not had one in many decades. We have layer upon layer of government regulations which strangle the efficiency of health care delivery. Obamacare is just the latest layer, although a very important one. Most of the solutions put forth to try to make health care affordable center around getting more of it covered by insurance or government. The simple truth of the matter is that we are over-insured, and that is the underlying problem. Tax incentives promoting health insurance for even the simplest things have led to our high costs. By not taking any insurance, Dr. Brook and others like him keep their costs down to surprisingly affordable levels. This is true in family practice and even for complex surgical care. The “poor†in America have electronics like computers, smart phones, and huge high definition TV sets. Why are electronics so affordable? Why are MRI scans not just as obtainable to “poor†Americans? The difference is found in free markets. Dr. Brook not only explains why this is true, but he gives examples of actual free market medical practices providing the same kind of results - care that is affordable to the patients and profitable to the providers of care. Many others who call for health care reform are advocating more government control, including completely socialized medicine. This is like taking a patient in congestive heart failure with fluid overload, and giving him a big bolus of IV fluid. Others just recommend trifling around at the edges of our problems, with changes to health savings accounts and the structure of Medicare. This is like taking our fluid overloaded patient and just changing the formulation of the IV fluid we are giving him. Why not take an extreme approach, and drain off excess fluid? This book makes the case in a very compelling, well documented way, that government interference has caused our problems with high cost and low levels of service. The solution, then, is not more interference, but less. Remove government interventions at all levels, and allow a free market to flourish. Health care will become affordable, and high levels of service will return. The patient will once again be treated like a valued customer that the doctor will work hard to please. House calls and thoroughness will revive. This is about more than just health care. Our entire economy is at risk of collapse if we continue on our current course. If you are opposed to a government-run system of health care, then read this book. It will confirm your suspicions about socialized medicine, and give you intellectual ammunition to argue your case in a logical and thorough way. If you are undecided, then read this book. It will explain the workings of our health care economy in a way that you probably have not heard before. If you are dedicated to socialized medicine, then read this book. If you want to elevate the condition of the lower classes, which socialists say they want to do, then you need to use free markets to accomplish that goal.
Link to Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281 (https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281)
-
How is giving out more free stuff going to save money? And how is artificially increasing demand (which will artificially increase prices) going to lower the cost of health care?
Stop being so logical. It doesn’t work with the indoctrinated left.
-
I go to an MD who works out of his house. At least twice a year for lab work. Average cost, with lab, is about $55 per visit. He does house calls. Doesn't take insurance.
He wrote a book. And yes, I have a signed copy. And no, I am not trying to sell his book. You get the gist from the 3,000-word description.
Dr, James Brook.
The High Price of Socialized Medicine: A History of Government Meddling in American Health Care, and How a Free Market Would Solve Our Problems
Here is the book description, in full, from Amazon.
American health care is so expensive because of unrestrained free markets, right? Dr. Brook used to think so, until he learned the truth in his medical training. He was an unabashed supporter of socialized medicine, until he saw what socialism was doing to the people it was supposed to be helping, and to the country as a whole. He changed his tune completely during medical school, and opened a family practice that operates as closely to free market principles as possible. The result? Affordable, thorough care brought to those people that the main-stream media say have “no access to health care.†This book explains what Dr. Brook learned that changed his attitude. It is the result of his years of training and experience as a doctor, and extensive research. How would we know what a free market would do to health care? We have not had one in many decades. We have layer upon layer of government regulations which strangle the efficiency of health care delivery. Obamacare is just the latest layer, although a very important one. Most of the solutions put forth to try to make health care affordable center around getting more of it covered by insurance or government. The simple truth of the matter is that we are over-insured, and that is the underlying problem. Tax incentives promoting health insurance for even the simplest things have led to our high costs. By not taking any insurance, Dr. Brook and others like him keep their costs down to surprisingly affordable levels. This is true in family practice and even for complex surgical care. The “poor†in America have electronics like computers, smart phones, and huge high definition TV sets. Why are electronics so affordable? Why are MRI scans not just as obtainable to “poor†Americans? The difference is found in free markets. Dr. Brook not only explains why this is true, but he gives examples of actual free market medical practices providing the same kind of results - care that is affordable to the patients and profitable to the providers of care. Many others who call for health care reform are advocating more government control, including completely socialized medicine. This is like taking a patient in congestive heart failure with fluid overload, and giving him a big bolus of IV fluid. Others just recommend trifling around at the edges of our problems, with changes to health savings accounts and the structure of Medicare. This is like taking our fluid overloaded patient and just changing the formulation of the IV fluid we are giving him. Why not take an extreme approach, and drain off excess fluid? This book makes the case in a very compelling, well documented way, that government interference has caused our problems with high cost and low levels of service. The solution, then, is not more interference, but less. Remove government interventions at all levels, and allow a free market to flourish. Health care will become affordable, and high levels of service will return. The patient will once again be treated like a valued customer that the doctor will work hard to please. House calls and thoroughness will revive. This is about more than just health care. Our entire economy is at risk of collapse if we continue on our current course. If you are opposed to a government-run system of health care, then read this book. It will confirm your suspicions about socialized medicine, and give you intellectual ammunition to argue your case in a logical and thorough way. If you are undecided, then read this book. It will explain the workings of our health care economy in a way that you probably have not heard before. If you are dedicated to socialized medicine, then read this book. If you want to elevate the condition of the lower classes, which socialists say they want to do, then you need to use free markets to accomplish that goal.
Link to Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281 (https://www.amazon.com/High-Price-Socialized-Medicine-Government/dp/1507803281)
Without reading the book I can assure you that Dr. Brook is 100% correct @bigheadfred
-
Without reading the book I can assure you that Dr. Brook is 100% correct @bigheadfred
I just wanted to point out where I go and what kind of doctor.
I don't have insurance. I could probably get some with a huge subsidy, but that flat pisses me off. I don't want any of you paying for my health insurance.
-
I don't have insurance.
For all practical purposes, I don't have insurance either. I only pay for it. My premiums today are higher than they were in 2010. The difference is that my deductible back then was only $1,500. Today it is $13,000. Meanwhile, doctors continue to do procedures and charge fees as if the insurance company is the customer, except I am the one who ends up paying those fees.
-
For all practical purposes, I don't have insurance either. I only pay for it. My premiums today are higher than they were in 2010. The difference is that my deductible back then was only $1,500. Today it is $13,000. Meanwhile, doctors continue to do procedures and charge fees as if the insurance company is the customer, except I am the one who ends up paying those fees.
My employer-based insurance ended Jan.1, 2015. They would give you a pay raise that was enough to cover your share of the cost when you became eligible. So it showed as a deduction on your paystub. I added my wife for about $135/month. 80/20 insurance. The deductible was $500.
I claim an exemption for the penalty on my taxes every year. I think the Individual Mandate ends this year?
-
My employer-based insurance ended Jan.1, 2015. They would give you a pay raise that was enough to cover your share of the cost when you became eligible. So it showed as a deduction on your paystub. I added my wife for about $135/month. 80/20 insurance. The deductible was $500.
$135/mo would be nice. Unfortunately, I am prohibited by federal law from purchasing insurance offered in other States. 80/20 would be nice too. Technically, I have 80/20, except that my network now is less than 1/3 the size of the network I had before Obamacare. So anyone I really need to see is naturally out of network with only 60% coverage, not that I even get that since my deductible is so high.
The best thing I have going today is my HSA which lets me pay for healthcare with pre-tax income. But there are limits on how much I can contribute.
-
$135/mo would be nice. Unfortunately, I am prohibited by federal law from purchasing insurance offered in other States. 80/20 would be nice too. Technically, I have 80/20, except that my network now is less than 1/3 the size of the network I had before Obamacare. So anyone I really need to see is naturally out of network with only 60% coverage, not that I even get that since my deductible is so high.
The best thing I have going today is my HSA which lets me pay for healthcare with pre-tax income. But there are limits on how much I can contribute.
It was good. Until it ended. I really think when it comes to insurance, health care, big pharma, and the gubmint, RICO applies.
-
Perhaps Mr. @Jazzhead would be kind enough to explain to us just why he thinks all that regulation of this market is necessary.
Insurance is all about the shifting of risk. By paying an insurance premium, I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous. The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year.
So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders. However, another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is, what risks they must cover as a matter of law. Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs, preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc. The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old, so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks. The market has effectively been distorted and stifled, and with it consumer choice.
-
Insurance is all about the shifting of risk. By paying an insurance premium, I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous. The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year.
So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders. However, another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is, what risks they must cover as a matter of law. Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs, preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc. The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old, so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks. The market has effectively been distorted and stifled, and with it consumer choice.
Medicare for All would do nothing to give consumers a better choice. And it's not really about medical care or coverage anyway...as with most leftist ideas...it's about wealth transfer.
-
Insurance is all about the shifting of risk. By paying an insurance premium, I am seeking to have a third party assume the financial costs of a risk that is unlikely to occur, but if it does occur would be ruinous. The insurance company is betting in turn that it will make money by collecting and investing premiums that in total exceed the claims it is obliged to pay in a given year.
That's the gist of it. Consumers who are risk-averse create a market for insurance. Consumers who are risk-loving do not.
So the states have traditionally regulated the market for insurance, including health insurance, to make sure that insurance companies have sufficient reserves and other indicia of financial integrity to make good on the promises they've made to their policyholders.
Which is their right under Amendment X, US Constitution. The problem lies with the Federal Legislature which prohibits an insurer in one State from offering policies in another. It is an affront to interstate commerce. So if a big insurer wants to operate in all 50 states, then they have to set up 50 separate autonomous companies which drives up their costs considerably. And the biggest irony of all that the government uses the interstate commerce clause of Article I to justify their power to prohibit interstate commerce.
However, another aspect of insurance that states (and now, with the ACA, the federal government) increasingly regulate is the design of insurance policies; that is, what risks they must cover as a matter of law. Here, the ACA has done great damage by essentially nationalizing many of these requirements, such as coverage for prescription drugs, preventive care, mental health and substance abuse, etc. The ACA has also nationalized certain underwriting practices, such as the permissible spread in premium differentials between young and old, so that younger folks are essentially subsidizing the costs of providing coverage to older folks. The market has effectively been distorted and stifled, and with it consumer choice.
Correct on all counts. And it demonstrates why the Federal Government needs to get the hell out of the insurance market.
In addition, the federal mandates force risk-loving consumers to behave as risk-adverse consumers, artificially driving up demand, and with it, price. The irony here is that the excuse given for implementing Obamacare was to drive down price, yet Econ 101 correctly predicted that price would increase as a result.
And now the final irony. These same Democrats (and their policy supporters) who originally forced these mandates upon us at the point of a gun while preaching the need that everyone "must" have insurance are now telling us that private insurance needs to be done away with altogether (also at the point of a gun).
-
That's the gist of it. Consumers who are risk-averse create a market for insurance. Consumers who are risk-loving do not.
Which is their right under Amendment X, US Constitution. The problem lies with the Federal Legislature which prohibits an insurer in one State from offering policies in another. It is an affront to interstate commerce. So if a big insurer wants to operate in all 50 states, then they have to set up 50 separate autonomous companies which drives up their costs considerably. And the biggest irony of all that the government uses the interstate commerce clause of Article I to justify their power to prohibit interstate commerce.
Correct on all counts. And it demonstrates why the Federal Government needs to get the hell out of the insurance market.
In addition, the federal mandates force risk-loving consumers to behave as risk-adverse consumers, artificially driving up demand, and with it, price. The irony here is that the excuse given for implementing Obamacare was to drive down price, yet Econ 101 correctly predicted that price would increase as a result.
And now the final irony. These same Democrats (and their policy supporters) who originally forced these mandates upon us at the point of a gun while preaching the need that everyone "must" have insurance are now telling us that private insurance needs to be done away with altogether (also at the point of a gun).
:yowsa: pointing-up It' really all about cradle to grave control of us!