PDA

View Full Version : Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll



Peter1469
08-23-2018, 01:31 PM
Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all)

I am surprised by that number. I think it would end up in disaster, but if that many want it, perhaps they should get it.


A vast majority — 70 percent — of Americans in a new poll supports "Medicare for all," also known as a single-payer health-care system.

The Reuters–Ipsos survey (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-progressives/) found 85 percent of Democrats said they support the policy along with 52 percent of Republicans.


ADVERTISEMENT

Medicare for all has been in the headlines after a study (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/399715-new-study-ignites-debate-over-cost-of-medicare-for-all) by the libertarian-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University found it would lead to $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending over a 10-year period.

The study’s author, Charles Blahous, wrote in The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-doubling-taxes-wouldnt-pay-for-medicare-for-all-1533163559?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1) earlier this month that even doubling taxes would not cover the bill for a single-payer health-care system.


The policy’s proponents, however, point to a note in the study showing that health-care costs would also decrease by $2 trillion by 2031 if it became law.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (http://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders) (I-Vt.), who has introduced a Medicare for all bill, has said that the Mercatus study is “grossly misleading and biased.”


The new Reuters poll also showed that a majority of Americans supports free college tuition. Forty-one percent of Republicans said they supported the policy, pollsters found, compared with 79 percent of Democrats.

I expect the doctor shortage to continue to grow if this happens.

Admiral Ackbar
08-23-2018, 02:19 PM
The follow up question is what would you be willing to give up to get it. My guess is the answer will be nothing of course.

Peter1469
08-23-2018, 02:23 PM
The follow up question is what would you be willing to give up to get it. My guess is the answer will be nothing of course.
I suspect you are correct.

Hoosier8
08-23-2018, 02:23 PM
$32.6 Trillion minus $2 Trillion. Gosh, that makes it only $30.6 Trillion.

jimmyz
08-23-2018, 02:43 PM
If I were a general practice family doctor I might move to a cash only practice for routine general practice clinical visits. It seems that you would have a good customer base and a ton less paperwork and government regulations to deal with.

The push for single payer goes on. The damage to the General Fund and American citizen be damned.

DGUtley
08-23-2018, 02:54 PM
Personally, I think that it's coming. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in the not-too-distant future. Employee coverage is about 15K per year per insured family, with a 3500 per person deductible. I don't know how you fix that and not strangle businesses. I think you have to decouple it from employment -- make it more competitive.

barb012
08-23-2018, 05:04 PM
They might change their mind when they find out the price tag for everyone paying taxes for Medicare For All.

Captdon
08-23-2018, 05:15 PM
The follow up question is what would you be willing to give up to get it. My guess is the answer will be nothing of course.

In 2020 when Trump shows the cost to everyone who works this idea will be as dead as the idea of Trump losing. Tell people they will have to pony up 10,000 per person will quiet things nicely. A family of four paying 40,000 dollars a year will take the wind out of people.

Dr. Who
08-23-2018, 05:43 PM
In 2020 when Trump shows the cost to everyone who works this idea will be as dead as the idea of Trump losing. Tell people they will have to pony up 10,000 per person will quiet things nicely. A family of four paying 40,000 dollars a year will take the wind out of people.

I think that you will find that as we head into the future, medical diagnostics will increasingly be a matter of technology since databases can hold far more medical information that individuals can. Furthermore, many things that general practitioners do can be done by nurse practitioners for far less cost than doctors. That will reduce the need for family practitioners. Technology will allow specialists to deal with far more patients in a much shorter period of time. Remote surgery is already a reality. Someone thousands of miles away can perform surgery through a robotic interface and it's only a matter of time before routine surgeries are simply performed by machines.

Worry not - the practice of medicine is about to get a lot cheaper.

barb012
08-23-2018, 05:52 PM
Personally, I think that it's coming. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in the not-too-distant future. Employee coverage is about 15K per year per insured family, with a 3500 per person deductible. I don't know how you fix that and not strangle businesses. I think you have to decouple it from employment -- make it more competitive.

Not if your employer is self-insured and only use the network of your chosen insurance plan. Those premiums are not paid to the insurance company on your card, they only pay when you receive medical services to the carrier that they forward those payments to your medical provider. Employers who are self-insured only pay 5% of the cost of coverage to the insurance company for the benefit of using their network.

Peter1469
08-23-2018, 06:35 PM
I think that you will find that as we head into the future, medical diagnostics will increasingly be a matter of technology since databases can hold far more medical information that individuals can. Furthermore, many things that general practitioners do can be done by nurse practitioners for far less cost than doctors. That will reduce the need for family practitioners. Technology will allow specialists to deal with far more patients in a much shorter period of time. Remote surgery is already a reality. Someone thousands of miles away can perform surgery through a robotic interface and it's only a matter of time before routine surgerys are simply performed by machines.

Worry not - the practice of medicine is about to get a lot cheaper.
Not if we give it to the government to manage.

The free market will achieve your goals.

Dr. Who
08-23-2018, 06:57 PM
Not if we give it to the government to manage.

The free market will achieve your goals.
It really depends upon which levels of government do the managing. If the feds fund the states to manage their own health care, it could work.

Ethereal
08-23-2018, 07:03 PM
If Medicare for all consolidated existing government healthcare into one streamlined agency for all Americans, I might be able to support it. But as another layer of bureaucracy and government growth, I am implacably opposed to it. And knowing Democrats, they will opt for the bigger government option, like they always do.

Ethereal
08-23-2018, 07:06 PM
I think that you will find that as we head into the future, medical diagnostics will increasingly be a matter of technology since databases can hold far more medical information that individuals can. Furthermore, many things that general practitioners do can be done by nurse practitioners for far less cost than doctors. That will reduce the need for family practitioners. Technology will allow specialists to deal with far more patients in a much shorter period of time. Remote surgery is already a reality. Someone thousands of miles away can perform surgery through a robotic interface and it's only a matter of time before routine surgeries are simply performed by machines.

Worry not - the practice of medicine is about to get a lot cheaper.
Only if market forces are greater than the bureaucratic forces inhibiting the free-flow of goods, services, and information.

Ethereal
08-23-2018, 07:07 PM
It really depends upon which levels of government do the managing. If the feds fund the states to manage their own health care, it could work.
That would certainly be preferable to a nationalized healthcare system.

Dr. Who
08-23-2018, 07:49 PM
That would certainly be preferable to a nationalized healthcare system.

I think that it makes more sense. The states are closer to their electorate and their needs.

gamewell45
08-23-2018, 08:28 PM
In 2020 when Trump shows the cost to everyone who works this idea will be as dead as the idea of Trump losing. Tell people they will have to pony up 10,000 per person will quiet things nicely. A family of four paying 40,000 dollars a year will take the wind out of people.

What if the combined family income of four is only $30,000 per year? how do they manage to meet that figure? There would have to be some sort of sliding scale for people to use I'd imagine.

MisterVeritis
08-23-2018, 08:53 PM
What if the combined family income of four is only $30,000 per year? how do they manage to meet that figure? There would have to be some sort of sliding scale for people to use I'd imagine.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

gamewell45
08-23-2018, 08:56 PM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Yes, most likely.

countryboy
08-23-2018, 09:04 PM
Yes, most likely.

Lol, you realize that was written by Karl Marx, literally, right?

MisterVeritis
08-23-2018, 09:05 PM
Yes. Liberals know they are embracing Marxism. They stupidly believe they will benefit from it.

Peter1469
08-23-2018, 09:05 PM
For those of you who support some sort of single payer system, do you support a separate system of private insurance?

gamewell45
08-23-2018, 09:17 PM
Lol, you realize that was written by Karl Marx, literally, right?

No, but that's cool.

jimmyz
08-23-2018, 10:25 PM
For those of you who support some sort of single payer system, do you support a separate system of private insurance?

I dont support single payer but would buy my own private insurance to receive more options and better care. My booze and cigar addiction be damned. I could always move to Jim Beam and Swisher Sweets. lol

Dr. Who
08-23-2018, 10:31 PM
For those of you who support some sort of single payer system, do you support a separate system of private insurance?
To cover "extras" that are not medically necessary, yes. As a separate form of medical coverage, it is problematic. It creates separate tiers of treatment for the rich and the poor. The "best" doctors work exclusively in the expensive private system with all the bells and whistles and everyone else gets second best. It's a philosophical issue. Are people more deserving of better health care because they are wealthy?

countryboy
08-23-2018, 11:02 PM
No, but that's cool.
Yep, communism is the bee's knees.

Common Sense
08-23-2018, 11:08 PM
Yep, communism is the bee's knees.

Universal healthcare isn't communism.

Peter1469
08-24-2018, 05:06 AM
To cover "extras" that are not medically necessary, yes. As a separate form of medical coverage, it is problematic. It creates separate tiers of treatment for the rich and the poor. The "best" doctors work exclusively in the expensive private system with all the bells and whistles and everyone else gets second best. It's a philosophical issue. Are people more deserving of better health care because they are wealthy?

Any government run plan in the US is going to be based off an acceptable minimum level of care. I would pay for my own insurance- which I do now. I am entitled to free care through the VA, yet I have my own private insurance.

Common
08-24-2018, 05:29 AM
Two points, anytime someone is going to get something for free they are going to vote for it.

Medicare for all will never get off the ground because the sheer cost would be astonishing

countryboy
08-24-2018, 06:29 AM
Universal healthcare isn't communism.

Karl Marx quotes are.

Chris
08-24-2018, 09:25 AM
Universal healthcare isn't communism.

Oh, really?


...n 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Medical care became a producer-oriented industry, instead of the consumer-oriented market that it had been in Old Russia....

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality (https://fee.org/resources/socialized-health-care-the-communist-dream-and-the-soviet-reality/)


The key there is "Medical care became a producer-oriented industry."

That's likely what will happen here.

Common Sense
08-24-2018, 11:17 AM
Oh, really?



Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality (https://fee.org/resources/socialized-health-care-the-communist-dream-and-the-soviet-reality/)


The key there is "Medical care became a producer-oriented industry."

That's likely what will happen here.

Still doesn't make universal healthcare communism. The Nazis built highways, that doesn't make highways national socialist.

nathanbforrest45
08-24-2018, 11:26 AM
Still doesn't make universal healthcare communism. The Nazis built highways, that doesn't make highways national socialist.


It does make the building of highways with federal funds unconstitutional. Eisenhower had to sell the fiction the highways were for "national defense" which is why in the beginning they were known as National Defense Highways.

And actually, a strong case could be made the building of the highways was a socialist action.

Common Sense
08-24-2018, 11:52 AM
It does make the building of highways with federal funds unconstitutional. Eisenhower had to sell the fiction the highways were for "national defense" which is why in the beginning they were known as National Defense Highways.

And actually, a strong case could be made the building of the highways was a socialist action.

Socialism, sure. Communism? No.

Yes, things like the federal highway system, other taxpayer funded or subsidized infrastructure, national parks, etc... could be considered socialist in nature.

Jets
08-24-2018, 12:08 PM
Let’s figure out the proposed tax rate required to fund MFA, and recheck these poll numbers...

texan
08-24-2018, 02:36 PM
People always believe this solves the problem but it doesn't.

The rich or the more well off buy secondary policies that allow them a higher grade of service. Honestly there isn't that much difference.

I do believe we need to figure out a way to stop the insane charges for certain things.

Captdon
08-24-2018, 02:42 PM
It really depends upon which levels of government do the managing. If the feds fund the states to manage their own health care, it could work.

That will never happen. The socialist will never give the power up. So, it can't work.

Captdon
08-24-2018, 02:52 PM
What if the combined family income of four is only $30,000 per year? how do they manage to meet that figure? There would have to be some sort of sliding scale for people to use I'd imagine.

That may be. If it is then keep in mind that the less one pays the more another has to pay. It will actually be a tax. I'd hate to be a middle-class worker if this happens.

Chris
08-24-2018, 02:56 PM
People always believe this solves the problem but it doesn't.

The rich or the more well off buy secondary policies that allow them a higher grade of service. Honestly there isn't that much difference.

I do believe we need to figure out a way to stop the insane charges for certain things.


The problem it will not solve is the rising cost of health care. Look at those countires who have this already, their costs are rising at the same unsustainable rate. What do you expect when the government eliminates competition and fixes prices?

Chris
08-24-2018, 03:01 PM
Still doesn't make universal healthcare communism. The Nazis built highways, that doesn't make highways national socialist.

The Nazis were socialists too, CS.

Socialism/communism/nazism, all entail central planning.

Tahuyaman
08-24-2018, 03:51 PM
Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all)

I am surprised by that number. I think it would end up in disaster, but if that many want it, perhaps they should get it.



I expect the doctor shortage to continue to grow if this happens.

I have my doubts as to the credibility of any poll which can get that result.

Tahuyaman
08-24-2018, 03:54 PM
Personally, I think that it's coming. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in the not-too-distant future. Employee coverage is about 15K per year per insured family, with a 3500 per person deductible. I don't know how you fix that and not strangle businesses. I think you have to decouple it from employment -- make it more competitive.

I Dont know how anyone could not agree with the idea that eventually, we will be living under a system of complete socialized medical care. I think it's going to happen sooner than you think.

CCitizen
08-24-2018, 03:58 PM
Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all)
I am surprised by that number. I think it would end up in disaster, but if that many want it, perhaps they should get it.

All Humans should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

Sadly it is hard to implement.

MisterVeritis
08-24-2018, 03:59 PM
People always believe this solves the problem but it doesn't.

The rich or the more well off buy secondary policies that allow them a higher grade of service. Honestly there isn't that much difference.

I do believe we need to figure out a way to stop the insane charges for certain things.
If you are serious, push to get the government completely out of the healthcare industry including insurance. Problem solved.

MisterVeritis
08-24-2018, 03:59 PM
All Humans should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

Sadly it is hard to implement.
You have the right to get as much of each as you can. No one is obligated to provide for you.

Peter1469
08-24-2018, 04:00 PM
I have my doubts as to the credibility of any poll which can get that result.

I thought that, but didn't say it.

CCitizen
08-24-2018, 04:01 PM
They might change their mind when they find out the price tag for everyone paying taxes for Medicare For All.
Sadly, providing for all people is still hardly feasible. But I hope someday it will be.

MisterVeritis
08-24-2018, 04:02 PM
Sadly, providing for all people is still hardly feasible. But I hope someday it will be.
Who will the slaves be in your Brave New World?

Peter1469
08-24-2018, 04:03 PM
All Humans should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

Sadly it is hard to implement.

Remote Area Medical (https://www.ramusa.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9erp68qG3QIViR6GCh3awQAGEAAYASA AEgJMZ_D_BwE) has a good model to provide good and cost effective medical care for free (for those who get the care that is).

We can make camps for those who can't find a place to stay. And have soup kitchens.

The problem is what to do with addicts and the mentally ill.

Bob the Slob
08-24-2018, 04:08 PM
I Dont know how anyone could not agree with the idea that eventually, we will be living under a system of complete socialized medical care. I think it's going to happen sooner than you think.


That's not so bad. We live under a system of socialized corporate welfare and have not had any benefits trickle down to us. REMOVING The socialism programs for the rich and monopolies would fund the health care for everyone.

Chris
08-24-2018, 04:19 PM
That's not so bad. We live under a system of socialized corporate welfare and have not had any benefits trickle down to us. REMOVING The socialism programs for the rich and monopolies would fund the health care for everyone.


Let's just remove all welfare.

Bob the Slob
08-24-2018, 04:27 PM
Let's just remove all welfare.

Why? Corporations TOOK jobs overseas. Wages paid here are so low, people get foodstamps. With this attack on AMerican workers, they need assistance. Let's remove socialized welfare for the rich.

Chris
08-24-2018, 04:53 PM
Why? Corporations TOOK jobs overseas. Wages paid here are so low, people get foodstamps. With this attack on AMerican workers, they need assistance. Let's remove socialized welfare for the rich.

Uh, so? Taxation and regulation drive companies out and wages down. Ooops, the government you so love didn't think of that. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bemoaning the closing of a coffee shop because liberals had raised the minimum wage.

kilgram
08-25-2018, 04:22 AM
Wrong. Free market is not applicable in health care, and you have free market right now with the most elitist and expensive healthcare of the Occidental world.

Public healthcare can be much cheaper because there is not profit involvement, plus a healthcare focused in prevention rather than cure will reduce much more the costs.

Spain healthcare is currently cheap in one of the best of the world, despite the attacks on it and the try of dismantling the public healthcare from the rightist governments.

kilgram
08-25-2018, 04:23 AM
If the coffee could not pay an acceptable wage maybe it needed to closed.

Common
08-25-2018, 06:02 AM
Wrong. Free market is not applicable in health care, and you have free market right now with the most elitist and expensive healthcare of the Occidental world.

Public healthcare can be much cheaper because there is not profit involvement, plus a healthcare focused in prevention rather than cure will reduce much more the costs.

Spain healthcare is currently cheap in one of the best of the world, despite the attacks on it and the try of dismantling the public healthcare from the rightist governments.

I agree with you kilgram but the same is true for Electric bills and city water, profit drives the price of commodities sky high.

Its not only the Health insurance Industry, house insurance, car insurance. Heres the difference though, to set up an imaging clinic costs Hundreds of millions of dollars, The latest imaging machinces all cost in the millions then the cost to be certified to give dye injections and have the medical emergency kits in place and everything else entailed, buying a building etc, all that costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Spains health care is considered the 7th best in the world because of the care given not because of the system. The system has extremely long waits to see specialists and to have surgeries.

Universal health care is only good for the sniffles and the flu and to see general practicioners. When you really get sick going to an american emergency room is not only better but faster, you get to see a specialist immediately and if you need a procedure if you get it, and if you dont have health insurance it doesnt cost you a dime if you cant afford it.

Chris
08-25-2018, 08:40 AM
Wrong. Free market is not applicable in health care, and you have free market right now with the most elitist and expensive healthcare of the Occidental world.

Public healthcare can be much cheaper because there is not profit involvement, plus a healthcare focused in prevention rather than cure will reduce much more the costs.

Spain healthcare is currently cheap in one of the best of the world, despite the attacks on it and the try of dismantling the public healthcare from the rightist governments.


Why isn't health care applicable to the free market? Do more than make these declarations.


As for Spain's health care: "Due to the economic crisis and the election of a conservative government, the National Healthcare System is being seriously questioned, its very sustainability in doubt as reform measures are being taken that are considered a threat by many institutions and organizations to public welfare." http://www.hrpub.org/journals/article_info.php?aid=3660

Chris
08-25-2018, 08:41 AM
If the coffee could not pay an acceptable wage maybe it needed to closed.


Wow, now there's a great solution, going from poor paying jobs to no jobs. Brilliant!

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 08:42 AM
Wrong. Free market is not applicable in health care, and you have free market right now with the most elitist and expensive healthcare of the Occidental world.

Public healthcare can be much cheaper because there is not profit involvement, plus a healthcare focused in prevention rather than cure will reduce much more the costs.

Spain healthcare is currently cheap in one of the best of the world, despite the attacks on it and the try of dismantling the public healthcare from the rightist governments.

Free market forces give lower costs and higher quality care.

Dangermouse
08-25-2018, 08:53 AM
Free market forces give lower costs and higher quality care.

The reverse is true in healthcare. Illness is not a choice or an inconvenience, the "customer" lacks alternatives to treatment.

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 08:56 AM
The reverse is true in healthcare.

No. It is not.

First, you have to understand that there is almost no free market in health care. In the US you see it in LASIK as an example. That is an extremely profitable, very high quality service and the prices have come way down.

If the free market was banned from all health care in favor of universal coverage, LASIK would be eliminated as a medical procedure.

Chris
08-25-2018, 09:02 AM
The reverse is true in healthcare. Illness is not a choice or an inconvenience, the "customer" lacks alternatives to treatment.


How do you arrive at that conclusion when government-run anything is monopolistic and free-market anything is competitive?

What has illness not being a choice have to do with anything?

Explain. Don't just make oddball declarations.

donttread
08-25-2018, 09:23 AM
The follow up question is what would you be willing to give up to get it. My guess is the answer will be nothing of course.


In a free market employers cost would decrease and wages would increase allowing more tax money to fund the program. In reality , this will water down medicare to the point where it will be a very ineffective insurance , everyone will still need to buy gap insurance and Medicaid will still be expensive to the states. Healthcare cost will rise and it will be a general cluster fuck. I do like the idea of divorcing health insurance form employment, but doubt that the feds can pull that off.

Captdon
08-25-2018, 10:13 AM
All Humans should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

Sadly it is hard to implement.

--wrong
--wrong
--wrong

Chris
08-25-2018, 10:15 AM
All Humans should have a right to

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

Sadly it is hard to implement.


Hard to implement? Why should it be implemented? Why are those things your responsibility? Yes, you need to cooperate with others to achieve those things, but it's not their responsibility but yours.

Captdon
08-25-2018, 10:16 AM
I thought that, but didn't say it.

Reuters is pretty good. I don't believe this but they have no axe to grind. I wonder how the question was posed.

Captdon
08-25-2018, 10:27 AM
I'm surprised no one has brought up Medicare. It is government run and reasonably effective cost-wise. The reason it is run well is because of private insurance. No doctor will take 75 dollars for an office visit when insurance pays 120. So Medicare has to pay 120 to allow medicare recipients to get care.

In that sense, there is Medicare competition. Eliminate that and you will get fewer doctors. Going to school for 8 years and going 150-200 thousand dollars in debt to make $75,000 isn't going to work.

donttread
08-25-2018, 01:38 PM
Healthcare treats dysfunctions that occur from a wide variety of sources but treating the ravages of lifestyle is now it's number one purpose. Find a way to incentivize people to practice better wellness without bankrupting them until they get there and you'll be on to a solution healthcare has been looking for for a quarter century or more. The latest master plan is to pay healthcare systems to keep us well instead of paying them to treat our illness . Great idea but very tough to implement in the real world.

Common Sense
08-25-2018, 02:08 PM
No. It is not.

First, you have to understand that there is almost no free market in health care. In the US you see it in LASIK as an example. That is an extremely profitable, very high quality service and the prices have come way down.

If the free market was banned from all health care in favor of universal coverage, LASIK would be eliminated as a medical procedure.

Yet LASIK exists here in Canada and its development was a culmination of various research conducted in many countries including the US.

Chris
08-25-2018, 02:09 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up Medicare. It is government run and reasonably effective cost-wise. The reason it is run well is because of private insurance. No doctor will take 75 dollars for an office visit when insurance pays 120. So Medicare has to pay 120 to allow medicare recipients to get care.

In that sense, there is Medicare competition. Eliminate that and you will get fewer doctors. Going to school for 8 years and going 150-200 thousand dollars in debt to make $75,000 isn't going to work.



Medicare pays 80% of what it approves, private insurance the rest.

Here's an instance where Medicare eliminated competition. In the area of durable medical goods, from beds to oxygen tanks to wheelchairs, it decided to open up competitive bidding by companies to control an area, generally a city and its suburbs. In order to bid, you had to demonstrate you could supply the entire area bid on. Only big national companies could promise that and all the local mom and pop shops were forced out of business.

donttread
08-25-2018, 02:18 PM
No. It is not.

First, you have to understand that there is almost no free market in health care. In the US you see it in LASIK as an example. That is an extremely profitable, very high quality service and the prices have come way down.

If the free market was banned from all health care in favor of universal coverage, LASIK would be eliminated as a medical procedure.


This is one I use to out people who blindly believe in the unicorn like "free market". If someone tells you that a true , direct free market exist in today's healthcare change the subject or leave because you are literally wasting your breath. If someone can look at healthcare and deem it a free market they are just parroting the Gospel according to someone else. There is a hint of price competition in the dealings between healthcare systems and insurance companies but hardly any at the consumer lever. No price competition at the consumer level= no free market.

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 03:49 PM
Yet LASIK exists here in Canada and its development was a culmination of various research conducted in many countries including the US.

I am explaining a free market in health care in the US to you.

It is efficient and affordable.

Common Sense
08-25-2018, 04:13 PM
I am explaining a free market in health care in the US to you.

It is efficient and affordable.

In comparison to other countries, it's not affordable.

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 04:30 PM
In comparison to other countries, it's not affordable.

You have failed to pay attention.

There is almost zero free market health care in the US. Go back to my previous example of where it exists.

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 04:31 PM
For those who want to fix the problem:

More free market, not less.

Chris
08-25-2018, 04:43 PM
In comparison to other countries, it's not affordable.

To say one costs more is a meaningless gesture. No health care system is affordable in any sustainable sense. Last time we discussed it I posted any number of papers on the unsustainability of Canada's system.

Captdon
08-25-2018, 05:46 PM
Medicare pays 80% of what it approves, private insurance the rest.

Here's an instance where Medicare eliminated competition. In the area of durable medical goods, from beds to oxygen tanks to wheelchairs, it decided to open up competitive bidding by companies to control an area, generally a city and its suburbs. In order to bid, you had to demonstrate you could supply the entire area bid on. Only big national companies could promise that and all the local mom and pop shops were forced out of business.

That isn't eliminating competition.If mom and pop shops can't compete how is that my problem? If the cost of Medicare can be controlled then it should be.

Captdon
08-25-2018, 05:48 PM
If the coffee could not pay an acceptable wage maybe it needed to closed.

Yea, tell that to the people out of work. Liberal thinking at it's best,

MisterVeritis
08-25-2018, 05:51 PM
That isn't eliminating competition.If mom and pop shops can't compete how is that my problem? If the cost of Medicare can be controlled then it should be.
Wait. So we should allow the government to establish rules to prevent small businesses from competing and then blame them because they cannot compete?


Hmmm.

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 06:24 PM
Yet LASIK exists here in Canada and its development was a culmination of various research conducted in many countries including the US.

In the US, if there was a single payer system, LASIK would be gone. We would't be able to cover the costs of simple tests for everyone.

Common Sense
08-25-2018, 06:36 PM
In the US, if there was a single payer system, LASIK would be gone. We would't be able to cover the costs of simple tests for everyone.
It wouldn't be gone. It isn't in Canada. Why would it be in the US?

Peter1469
08-25-2018, 09:15 PM
It wouldn't be gone. It isn't in Canada. Why would it be in the US?

Because we have a lot more people than you.

donttread
08-26-2018, 08:06 AM
For those who want to fix the problem:

More free market, not less.


In our healthcare system almost ANY free market would be more.

CCitizen
08-26-2018, 06:30 PM
Remote Area Medical (https://www.ramusa.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9erp68qG3QIViR6GCh3awQAGEAAYASA AEgJMZ_D_BwE) has a good model to provide good and cost effective medical care for free (for those who get the care that is).
We can make camps for those who can't find a place to stay. And have soup kitchens.
The problem is what to do with addicts and the mentally ill.
That is a great idea -- hopefully food, shelter, and medical care would be of reasonable quality.

CCitizen
08-26-2018, 06:32 PM
Hard to implement? Why should it be implemented? Why are those things your responsibility? Yes, you need to cooperate with others to achieve those things, but it's not their responsibility but yours.
Many people can not provide

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

for themselves. Thus Society should help them.

CCitizen
08-26-2018, 06:33 PM
Who will the slaves be in your Brave New World?
Robots and machines. Much of need for human labor will be eliminated.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 06:37 PM
Wait. So we should allow the government to establish rules to prevent small businesses from competing and then blame them because they cannot compete?


Hmmm.

Medicare is a government run program. It made rules that lowered costs. If the small places couldn't compete that is not my problem.

Hmm that.

Chris
08-26-2018, 06:41 PM
That isn't eliminating competition.If mom and pop shops can't compete how is that my problem? If the cost of Medicare can be controlled then it should be.

But it is eliminating competition. Mom and pops can compete by specializing in one area, wheelchairs, say. The facade of competitive bidding does that.

If this happens in the free market, so be it, but it's happening because the government picks winners and losers.

MisterVeritis
08-26-2018, 06:43 PM
Robots and machines. Much of need for human labor will be eliminated.
No. It has never happened and will never happen.

MisterVeritis
08-26-2018, 06:44 PM
Medicare is a government run program. It made rules that lowered costs. If the small places couldn't compete that is not my problem.

Hmm that.

No. The government made rules designed to eliminate small businesses. That should never happen.

MisterVeritis
08-26-2018, 06:45 PM
Medicare is a government run program. It made rules that lowered costs. If the small places couldn't compete that is not my problem.

Hmm that.

This is why the government should have no involvement.

Chris
08-26-2018, 06:45 PM
Many people can not provide

-- food
-- shelter
-- medical care

for themselves. Thus Society should help them.

Socirty used to do that, the extended family, church organizations, the local community. The advantage is locally everyone knows everyone else, those helped are obliged to help others in their turn.

A distant, centralized government can't know the needs of local communities, those helped don't know where it comes from, or who to help next.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 06:47 PM
But it is eliminating competition. Mom and pops can compete by specializing in one area, wheelchairs, say. The facade of competitive bidding does that.

Yet, I get equipment from a guy who runs one store all by himself. He must be able to compete in what he sells.

If you cannot compete you have to go. It's the way it is. Medicare isn't public works project. It is a way to pay for healthcare. Why should prices be higher because Mom and Pop can't compete?

Captdon
08-26-2018, 06:50 PM
No. The government made rules designed to eliminate small businesses. That should never happen.

They made the rules to lower costs. That Mom and Pop couldn't compete is a byproduct and, while I feel for them, it's the way it goes.That's what threw you. They should always do that with public money.

Maybe Mom and Pop can die and solve the problem.

MisterVeritis
08-26-2018, 06:52 PM
They made the rules to lower costs. That Mom and Pop couldn't compete is a byproduct and, while I feel for them, it's the way it goes.That's what threw you. They should always do that with public money.

Maybe Mom and Pop can die and solve the problem.
Nope. They made rules to exclude small businesses from competing. I see no point to further discussions with you about this.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 06:53 PM
This is why the government should have no involvement.

That's fine but a long time too late now. I worry about what is and I'll leave the esoteric to you. Sort of you use your knowledge and I'll what works.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 07:00 PM
Nope. They made rules to exclude small businesses from competing. I see no point to further discussions with you about this.

I can see that. You are wrong and you know it. You are not going to turn liberal and me not notice it. You want to steal public money and give it to Mom and Pop. I want to conserve public money and save on costs.

MisterVeritis
08-26-2018, 07:07 PM
I can see that. You are wrong and you know it. You are not going to turn liberal and me not notice it. You want to steal public money and give it to Mom and Pop. I want to conserve public money and save on costs.
You err. It is not worth arguing over.

The right answer is to end all government involvement in health care and insurance.

Chris
08-26-2018, 07:08 PM
Yet, I get equipment from a guy who runs one store all by himself. He must be able to compete in what he sells.

If you cannot compete you have to go. It's the way it is. Medicare isn't public works project. It is a way to pay for healthcare. Why should prices be higher because Mom and Pop can't compete?


Agree, he must compete with other suppliers for your business. But that's not happening with Medicare. Companies are not competing for your business, but for the government to pick them as the winner and the others as losers.

Prices are normally lower when there's competition--companies compete by lowering prices or raising quality. Prices are normally higher under monopoly and once a company is locked in, it loses the incentive to innovate.

In a free market, yes, so be it. I have no issue with Walmart beating out others when consumers are the ones voting with their dollars.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 07:31 PM
You err. It is not worth arguing over.

The right answer is to end all government involvement in health care and insurance.

You're arguing; I'm stating facts.

Captdon
08-26-2018, 07:45 PM
Agree, he must compete with other suppliers for your business. But that's not happening with Medicare. Companies are not competing for your business, but for the government to pick them as the winner and the others as losers.

Prices are normally lower when there's competition--companies compete by lowering prices or raising quality. Prices are normally higher under monopoly and once a company is locked in, it loses the incentive to innovate.

In a free market, yes, so be it. I have no issue with Walmart beating out others when consumers are the ones voting with their dollars.

My wife and I have sleep apnea. We both have air machines. We are using different suppliers. There are two more we could have used. Doctors usually decide on who gives them the best service or kickback or something.


My county has 389,000 people. Not large for an area. Four suppliers for air machines seems like a lot to me. It sounds like competition to me. 4% of men and 2% of women have it but only 10% get treatment. That makes for about 1200 machines divided among 4 companies.


That seems competitive for that piece of equipment. There's no monopoly for medical equipment here and I don't think we are a special group.

I'm guessing other things, while more or less, would come out the same way.

The machine I got as a replacement was far superior to the one I got a couple of years ago. The one my wife recently got is far superior to mine. Why would there be innovation on these and not everything?


I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing.

Peter1469
08-26-2018, 07:53 PM
Robots and machines. Much of need for human labor will be eliminated.

Like with industrialization?

Archer0915
08-26-2018, 07:54 PM
Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all)

I am surprised by that number. I think it would end up in disaster, but if that many want it, perhaps they should get it.



I expect the doctor shortage to continue to grow if this happens.

A study? Leading questions and answer assumption.

Peter1469
08-26-2018, 08:58 PM
A study? Leading questions and answer assumption.

I expect the doctor shortage to continue to grow if this happens.

Archer0915
08-26-2018, 09:17 PM
I expect the doctor shortage to continue to grow if this happens.
The medical professionals I know have a bigger problem with bureaucrats than pay. I had one ask me to call hospital management and chew them out over some stupid rule. Medical doctors are highly skilled labor and the fact is they are being managed by morons and bean counters that have not practiced medicine.

It is like me telling you how to defend or prosecute a case about spousal abuse (My law consists of business and constitutional, had to for my BS) or you telling me how to path, and setup a laser path for a complex DXF that needs light burning, deep engraving and cutting.

Peter1469
08-26-2018, 09:18 PM
The medical professionals I know have a bigger problem with bureaucrats than pay. I had one ask me to call hospital management and chew them out over some stupid rule. Medical doctors are highly skilled labor and the fact is they are being managed by morons and bean counters that have not practiced medicine.

It is like me telling you how to defend or prosecute a case about spousal abuse (My law consists of business and constitutional, had to for my BS) or you telling me how to path, and setup a laser path for a complex DXF that needs light burning, deep engraving and cutting.
I agree. That is why I favor a free market solution.

Chris
08-27-2018, 08:04 AM
My wife and I have sleep apnea. We both have air machines. We are using different suppliers. There are two more we could have used. Doctors usually decide on who gives them the best service or kickback or something.


My county has 389,000 people. Not large for an area. Four suppliers for air machines seems like a lot to me. It sounds like competition to me. 4% of men and 2% of women have it but only 10% get treatment. That makes for about 1200 machines divided among 4 companies.


That seems competitive for that piece of equipment. There's no monopoly for medical equipment here and I don't think we are a special group.

I'm guessing other things, while more or less, would come out the same way.

The machine I got as a replacement was far superior to the one I got a couple of years ago. The one my wife recently got is far superior to mine. Why would there be innovation on these and not everything?


I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing.



Yes, 4 suppliers is competition. What I'm describing is Medicare coming in and opening bidding nationwide for your county, winner take all, meaning you'd have one supplier, who might be halfway across the country, not specialize in airmachines, but you'd have no choice, your doctor would have none.

The Xl
08-27-2018, 01:45 PM
People instinctively know they're being fucked on some level when it comes to healthcare. So they're going to clamor for a solution. The fact that the number is so high shows that the problem is affecting multiple socio-economic and racial groups. Personally I think this is the wrong way to go, but I can understand why some feel that way.

Robo
08-29-2018, 09:25 AM
It really depends upon which levels of government do the managing. If the feds fund the states to manage their own health care, it could work.

Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

Robo
08-29-2018, 09:32 AM
BTW, every state and local government should have the unconditional right and power to negotiate any and all healthcare insurance policies and drug prices with insurance companies and BIG pharmaceutical companies.

Captdon
08-29-2018, 10:01 AM
People instinctively know they're being $#@!ed on some level when it comes to healthcare. So they're going to clamor for a solution. The fact that the number is so high shows that the problem is affecting multiple socio-economic and racial groups. Personally I think this is the wrong way to go, but I can understand why some feel that way.

Insurers, including Medicare, will still pay 75 dollars for an aspirin. They have to know better but they don't do anything about it.I think they do it so they can claim to have cut the cost of other things and brag. The hospital makes the same amount of money.

I also don't know why Medicare can't negotiate drug prices. Well, i do know but it should be mandatory

Captdon
08-29-2018, 10:03 AM
Actually I think the founding principles had it right and it's the only actual constitutional way to go related to healthcare.

The founding principle was and is supposed to still be that the several states would act as a laboratory with the end result being the best, better solution for everything by the trial and error system. That's why amendment 10 to our constitution gives most powers to the states and or the people. The founders determined that government closest to the people would be more responsible by definition, i.e. the state government and or local government as opposed to the remote national government'


Thus, healthcare should be the power and determination of every individual state government, local government and the people of the particular state. Thus. the best healthcare will eventually rise to the top and thereby be adopted by every state likely with revisions therewith to accord with particular conditions of each particular state. Folks that didn't like a particular state's healthcare system could simply vote with their feet and move to another state where they would consider themselves better served.


This is what the founders envisioned and delivered constitutionally, "The Several State Laboratory" to establish free market solutions, preserve freedom and incorporate the best/better ideas.

What right does the federal government have to give money to the states?

Robo
08-30-2018, 09:13 AM
what right does the federal government have to give money to the states?

none!

Chris
08-30-2018, 09:40 AM
What right does the federal government have to give money to the states?

Let each state decide how to tax and avoid federal strings.