The US Will Have Single Payer and The Complete Lives System Within 10 Years

[nostradumbass]

.
lol yes, literally how insurance works. hopefully you don't need it, but if you do you're covered.

If I do, I already paid twice the amount that was needed. You think insurance company profits just come from thin air?

 

[Falsedawn]

That's how it works? Deal or no deal, you just give me the money up front on the off chance that you might use it in the future?

I think you're fairly young, so how much have you now paid compared to how much you've used? You definitely pretty far in the loss column, the same way I am.

I saw your edit that made it a little clearer.

Yeah, that's just how insurance works, it's a racket. And you are also correct that i'm way in the red on outlays vs benefits. The only problem with not having it is that costs are increasing in a large part because of people not being able to pay for the services. When they can't pay, the hospital has to recoup those costs somehow, so they jack up their prices to get that money back, hence increasing insurance premiums and making it more unaffordable. Your "true cost of service" isn't really that at all, it's your costs plus whatever the hospital thinks it can charge to recoup their losses for providing care to the indigent.

We gotta pay those costs anyway, i'd prefer we be able to control those so they don't spiral out of control. That's why single payer is so attractive, it cuts out the middleman and forces hospitals to negotiate those prices with the government, who can bend them over if it gets unreasonable. The public option would probably be better for insurers, but they didn't want that either, so fuck them.

 

[WiolentOne]

It will be a product. And when govt takes over healthcare, you are going to get the treatment (product) that the govt believes you should get.

As opposed to the "product" a poor rural family wouldnt be able to afford for their child with a life threatening illness?

Pick your poison but I'll pick the system where everyone has healthcare regardless of their finances.

This is America. We have an identity here. We look after our own.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

For those states perhaps not. For the US as a whole, easily. The rest of the civilized world can afford it.

California could easily afford it

 

[WiolentOne]

California could easily afford it

Without the millions of poor illegals they allow to stay.

 

[nostradumbass]

So a system with 650,000 doesn't work as well as one with 55 million...but 320 million and it will work like a machine.





You have to pay more money so that people who can't provide for themselves or at all will be taken care of, because that's how insurance works, you buy for everyone not yourself.

Look, I don't mind giving a few bucks to help out those who seriously can't help themselves. I have an uncle who might be the smartest person I know and built his own telescopes as a kid and had to drop out of college cause of schizophrenia. What I don't get is people who just make shitty decisions being in the same pool as me.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Without the millions of poor illegals they allow the stay.

illegals wouldnt factor in as you would need to show proof of residency to access a health card. Unless you're saying they would extend coverage to non residents -- which wouldnt happen.

 

[TheStruggle]

California could easily afford it

California needed to increase taxes on every person by 10% to afford single payer with included illegals

 

[m52nickerson]

320 Million people including millions of illegals. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected a $2.8 trillion a year for single payer. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government took in a bit under $3.3 trillion in revenue in 2016. Meaning the government would have to nearly double it's current tax revenue to pay for a single payer system for just the first 10 years.

Those are estimates for simply expanding medicaid for everyone. Not the smartest way to change to a single payer system.

 

[TheStruggle]

illegals wouldnt factor in as you would need to show proof of residency to access a health card. Unless you're saying they would extend coverage to non residents -- which wouldnt happen.

The California plan INCLUDED illegals BTW

 

[TheStruggle]

Those are estimates for simply expanding medicaid for everyone. Not the smartest way to change to a single payer system.

Even using Bernie Sanders own model you are talking about a 33% increase of taxes per year to fund it

 

[Rod1]

Without the millions of poor illegals they allow to stay.

And the sick and mentally ill that would be bused in by other states and counties.

 

[m52nickerson]

Even using Bernie Sanders own model you are talking about a 33% increase of taxes per year to fund it

Okay. Increasing my taxes by that much would most likely save me money if not having to pay health insurance and the co-pays.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

California needed to increase taxes on every person by 10% to afford single payer with included illegals

It would be a progressive tax increase on payroll, added VAT and possibly with reallocation of federal Medicaid funds. But, yes, California has a GDP that could sustain it like other nation states do.

 

[WiolentOne]

And the sick and mentally ill that would be bused in by other states and counties.

There could be rules against that with the exception of emergency or urgent care.

We could probably offer a significant discount tho.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

And the sick and mentally ill that would be bused in by other states and counties.

You would need a government allotted health card to obtain coverage. Canada implements their health care on a province by province level.

 

[Rod1]

It would be a progressive tax increase on payroll, added VAT and possibly with reallocation of federal Medicaid funds. But, yes, California has a GDP that could sustain it like other nation states do.

One of the key parts of public healthcare system is cost control.

How would California control costs?

 

[nostradumbass]

I saw your edit that made it a little clearer.

Yeah, that's just how insurance works, it's a racket. And you are also correct that i'm way in the red on outlays vs benefits. The only problem with not having it is that costs are increasing in a large part because of people not being able to pay for the services. When they can't pay, the hospital has to recoup those costs somehow, so they jack up their prices to get that money back, hence increasing insurance premiums and making it more unaffordable. Your "true cost of service" isn't really that at all, it's your costs plus whatever the hospital thinks it can charge to recoup their losses for providing care to the indigent.

We gotta pay those costs anyway, i'd prefer we be able to control those so they don't spiral out of control. That's why single payer is so attractive, it cuts out the middleman and forces hospitals to negotiate those prices with the government, who can bend them over if it gets unreasonable. The public option would probably be better for insurers, but they didn't want that either, so fuck them.

It's a middle man, and that always raises costs. I didn't have insurance in my late 20s and called the doctor to ask how much it was to just get checked out for food poisoning, and they were completely befuddled. Nobody had even called them who was actually paying. Prices would shrink dramatically if there wasn't a middle man.

I think you and I have the same goal, but just different views on how to get there.

 

[m52nickerson]

It's a middle man, and that always raises costs. I didn't have insurance in my late 20s and called the doctor to ask how much it was to just get checked out for food poisoning, and they were completely befuddled. Nobody had even called them who was actually paying. Prices would shrink dramatically if there wasn't a middle man.

I think you and I have the same goal, but just different views on how to get there.

If by dramatically you mean around 10% or so then yes. That is about the Insurance company to to keep out the premiums they take in. The rest is paid out to cover health care costs.

 

[TheStruggle]

Okay. Increasing my taxes by that much would most likely save me money if not having to pay health insurance and the co-pays.

Ok say you make 50K a year. Government already taxes you 30% The leave you with 35,000. Then they tax you an additional 10% per year for single payer. That's another 5,000 gone. You are down to $30000. After necessities like rent, food, and bills...Are you better off paying into a system that doesn't care how much you put in system when it's time to use it or are you better off keeping the money the government takes from you in taxes to actually buy a plan that works for you and your family because thats who you are buying for not everyone else.

It would be a progressive tax increase on payroll, added VAT and possibly with reallocation of federal Medicaid funds. But, yes, California has a GDP that could sustain it like other nation states do.

GDP has nothing to do with the State Budget. California only collects 236 million a year in taxes for residents. They would need 400 million a year to run single payer in California. That is a 10% minimum tax increase on California Resident to pay for the system. people would leave the state and then the system would fall apart.