Question for UHC supporters

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
The fact is that the medical industry, as a percentage of GDP, has to shrink. The well insured get some of the best care in the world, because we pay through the nose for it. I am perfectly willing to deal with some wait times, particularly for non time critical care, if it means that costs are lowered, and access is expanded to everyone. Also, the days of medical specialists raking in millions a year need to end.

I agree in general principle with everything you stated save for the highlighted portion. It's difficult and time consuming to become, say, a neurosurgeon. One's compensation is linked to both the difficulty of the job and the number of people who are capable of doing that job. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a specialist in a given field (whether it be medicine, science, whatever) being paid a salary commensurate with their skills.

If it was easy to do brain surgery then, yeah, they'd only make 100K a year because a large number of doctors would be capable of doing it.

As far as reducing costs, where does personal resonsibility for one's wellness come into play? That's one thing I've not seen discussed in any single payer plan. If I drink a case of beer a day and need a liver transplant at 40, can I reasonably expect that my fellow citizens should have to share the financial burden of that cost?

Actually, people WITH health insurance are basically already doing this...in addition to supporting all the ER visit from people without health insurance. Hospitals inflate billing to help offset their ER losses. Your insurance provider adjusts their rates based on the healthcare costs of their entire covered population; including all the alcoholics destroying their livers, and people infected with HIV/AIDS from unsafe sex, and obese people with coronary disease, and smokers with COPD, etc....

The only people who aren't suffering from such cost distributions are people who don't have insurance; and you're actually subsidizing that group in two ways: 1) inflated hospital billing (insurance rates) and, 2) state-run indigent care and public health funds (taxes).

It makes sense to me that guaranteed care of some form would reduce overall costs by allowing ALL people to seek care from a private practice or local urgent care before going to the ER. Even if they don't, the ERs might actually not have to bill so high if their volume is decreased enough.

 

[quest55720]

This government does not have the money for any UHC. They are running almost 2 trillion in deficit for next year. I don't know why anyone would think government can cut cost of health care. They have never cut the cost of anything hence 1.8 trillion deficit next year.

Also every employer will just pocket the extra money and use the economy as an excuse. Any UHC will be the death of the middle class since they will be the ones who will pay for it. The rich have lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes and the poor don't pay shit. Add a 10-25% tax on the middle class and you kill it.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: dullard
My UHC solution: The government gives a tax credit which is equal to the lesser of (a) what you actually paid for your private insurance or (b) what it would cost to pay for a high-deductable premium at a private company for someone with your history of health issues. That is the total extent of government involvement. No meddling, no bureacracy.

In that solution, what ensures timely care? The fact that crappy insurance companies can have their customers leave for a better insurance company.

That seems like a pretty decent plan to me. Retains a competitive, free market, while substantially reducing costs to the tax player in the form of subsidies/tax credits. It also lets the insurance companies and care providers deal with all the overhead. Get rid of all pre-existing condition policies, by law, and I'd call it a winner.

Seems like it would also be the easiest to implement in to our current structure.

Fine, if you want to get rid of the "pre-existing condition policies" then I demand they be allowed to segment their policies according to risk so I don't have to pay for everyone else in the nation.
Insurance is supposed to be RISK sharing - not cost sharing so it should be grouped by risk. I'd also like to see more coverage choices - just like you have with car INSURANCE. Segment out coverages and let people add or drop certain portions of their coverage to fit their needs. Each would have risk level pricing.

Either that or go back to actually paying for your normal care by having more primary care docs start refusing to deal with insurance so you pay when you go like it was before it became a mess. Sure, you'd want to carry some major med but that is was INSURANCE is meant to be anyway.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

Your point being? It's not like I see that $6500 in my pocket now, so even if it was taxed 100%, it still wouldn't change my take home pay. The only change is that it would go to single payer UHC plan instead of an insurance company.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: XMan
The systems as used in Canada, Britain, etc., eventually require rationing of care. Whether it be a 12+ month wait for knee surgery, or a waiting list for the removal of a tumor, turnaround is not nearly as quick as what is currently available to Americans today. There are enough published examples of those sort of things to eliminate any debate otherwise.

In the advent of a single-payer system, what means would be used to ensure that the timeliness of care is at least equal to what it is today? I understand that orthopedic surgeries are not considered "life threatening" and as such are generally subject to a wait - but in our current system there is no such wait. To me it's hard to justify a tax increase for health care (I currently pay ~1300 a year out of pocket for a PPO plan for a famly of three) if the level is not going to be at least consistent with what I can receive today.

Do this for us, please. Call your HR and ask them what your Cobra payment would be if you got laid off for that PPO for family of 3.
That way we'll know what the actual cost of your plan is instead of this B.S. $1300 number, and it's probably closer to $10K per year.
Plus if you think people in US never have to wait for insurance approval of procedure, or have insurance reject it, etc, then you got your blinders on nice and tight.

He will be surprised. My family plan costs about $13,000 per year with referrals required, $40 co-pays and 15/25/40 drug benefit.

Well, duh. I realize that.

FYI my company contributes about $6,500 a year per my "total compensation" statement. If you think they'd give me that as a raise, or if any company would, if the government took over, I've got a bridge to sell you.

They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Classy.

Thanks for sticking to pertinent facts in this debate.

Well, you are the one saying that if your company had more money to spend they wouldn't be using it to give you a raise. I just take you at your word. But you should not be assuming this will be the case for everyone.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

Your point being? It's not like I see that $6500 in my pocket now, so even if it was taxed 100%, it still wouldn't change my take home pay. The only change is that it would go to single payer UHC plan instead of an insurance company.

Except 95% of employees won't see that 6500 as it will go right in to the pocket of the employer. As 95% of people are expendable especially in an economy where people feel lucky to have a job in. So that person is out 6500 dollar benefit then a new 10-25% tax to pour salt into the wound. So basically 95% of the people who actually pay taxes will be screwed by any sort of UHC right now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

Your point being? It's not like I see that $6500 in my pocket now, so even if it was taxed 100%, it still wouldn't change my take home pay. The only change is that it would go to single payer UHC plan instead of an insurance company.

Except 95% of employees won't see that 6500 as it will go right in to the pocket of the employer. As 95% of people are expendable especially in an economy where people feel lucky to have a job in. So that person is out 6500 dollar benefit then a new 10-25% tax to pour salt into the wound. So basically 95% of the people who actually pay taxes will be screwed by any sort of UHC right now.

So wait, what you're saying is that the corporation will be getting ~$6500 more per employee in straight profit, right? Isn't the argument for cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy that they will have more money to create jobs with? So shouldn't you be all for this?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: dullard
My UHC solution: The government gives a tax credit which is equal to the lesser of (a) what you actually paid for your private insurance or (b) what it would cost to pay for a high-deductable premium at a private company for someone with your history of health issues. That is the total extent of government involvement. No meddling, no bureacracy.

In that solution, what ensures timely care? The fact that crappy insurance companies can have their customers leave for a better insurance company.

That seems like a pretty decent plan to me. Retains a competitive, free market, while substantially reducing costs to the tax player in the form of subsidies/tax credits. It also lets the insurance companies and care providers deal with all the overhead. Get rid of all pre-existing condition policies, by law, and I'd call it a winner.

Seems like it would also be the easiest to implement in to our current structure.

Fine, if you want to get rid of the "pre-existing condition policies" then I demand they be allowed to segment their policies according to risk so I don't have to pay for everyone else in the nation.
Insurance is supposed to be RISK sharing - not cost sharing so it should be grouped by risk. I'd also like to see more coverage choices - just like you have with car INSURANCE. Segment out coverages and let people add or drop certain portions of their coverage to fit their needs. Each would have risk level pricing.

Either that or go back to actually paying for your normal care by having more primary care docs start refusing to deal with insurance so you pay when you go like it was before it became a mess. Sure, you'd want to carry some major med but that is was INSURANCE is meant to be anyway.

Well, I'd prefer to conceptualize it as "universal health care" instead of "universal insurance", and what we think of as insurance companies are "health care coverage providers".

But, admittedly, I'm biased since my wife has chronic and complicated conditions.

 

[Cellulose]

Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

Your point being? It's not like I see that $6500 in my pocket now, so even if it was taxed 100%, it still wouldn't change my take home pay. The only change is that it would go to single payer UHC plan instead of an insurance company.

Except 95% of employees won't see that 6500 as it will go right in to the pocket of the employer. As 95% of people are expendable especially in an economy where people feel lucky to have a job in. So that person is out 6500 dollar benefit then a new 10-25% tax to pour salt into the wound. So basically 95% of the people who actually pay taxes will be screwed by any sort of UHC right now.

If you can't see the forest for the trees, maybe. There are a lot more than 5% of people who will have health coverage but can't afford it now, and will be better off under UHC, so there goes your 95% number. Plus employers will have to pay taxes on that savings if they pocket it. But ultimately, the labor market determines wages, not individual employers.
If there is more money chasing employees, wages are eventually going to be higher than they would have been otherwise.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
They probably wouldn't give you a raise, but I could see them giving a raise to employees they want to retain.
Guess what, their competitors are also going to have more money left to spend chasing top talent, so if they don't get with the program, they will lose good employees to companies who do. Again, it may not apply to you, I don't know. Maybe you are barely pulling your own weight.

Any and "good employees" that know anything about taxes would look at the two options ($6500 in medical insurance benefit or $6500 in pay increase) and run away laughing from the $6500 pay increase. Why?

Medical insurance paid for by your employer is a NONTAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT.

Your point being? It's not like I see that $6500 in my pocket now, so even if it was taxed 100%, it still wouldn't change my take home pay. The only change is that it would go to single payer UHC plan instead of an insurance company.

Except 95% of employees won't see that 6500 as it will go right in to the pocket of the employer. As 95% of people are expendable especially in an economy where people feel lucky to have a job in. So that person is out 6500 dollar benefit then a new 10-25% tax to pour salt into the wound. So basically 95% of the people who actually pay taxes will be screwed by any sort of UHC right now.

If you can't see the forest for the trees, maybe. There are a lot more than 5% of people who will have health coverage but can't afford it now, and will be better off under UHC, so there goes your 95% number. Plus employers will have to pay taxes on that savings if they pocket it. But ultimately, the labor market determines wages, not individual employers.
If there is more money chasing employees, wages are eventually going to be higher than they would have been otherwise.

Shit any halfway decent company will have write offs for the next 5-10 years. They will find a way to hide all that cash. While the middle class is turned into the poor over night with a monster tax hike to pay for the health care of south America. If labor determined the price of labor why do we need a minimum wage again?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Isn't that what all libs want? Spread the pain to everybody? Or is that wealth?

 

[theeedude]

Libs won last election. So you will soon find out what we want.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

LOL.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Assuming your job offers such an affordable plan. Most don't.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Assuming your job offers such an affordable plan. Most don't.

You are kidding, right? Most all of them do.

I always laugh at people who think healthcare insurance is so expensive. My guess is they have never shopped for healthcare insurance. You can get a pretty good INSURANCE plan for 100 bucks a month for single. And most all employers offer OUTSTANDING INSURANCE plans for a FAMILY for under 400 a month.

People often don't understand the difference between insurance and healthcare and lump them together. It's INSURANCE.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Someone should tell all those 50 million uninsured people to just get a job with insurance. Why didn't they think of that!?!

Dummies.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Someone should tell all those 50 million uninsured people to just get a job with insurance. Why didn't they think of that!?!

Dummies.

That number includes illegal mexicans and people who choose not to have insurance, but that's the crutch your side leans on. Facts don't matter.

Illegal mexicans and people too stupid to insure themselves are not my problem.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Someone should tell all those 50 million uninsured people to just get a job with insurance. Why didn't they think of that!?!

Dummies.

That number includes illegal mexicans and people who choose not to have insurance, but that's the crutch your side leans on. Facts don't matter.

Illegal mexicans and people too stupid to insure themselves are not my problem.

Except they are since we all pay for them in the E.R.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

That number includes illegal mexicans and people who choose not to have insurance, but that's the crutch your side leans on. Facts don't matter.

Illegal mexicans and people too stupid to insure themselves are not my problem.

Ahhh, but they are your problem. That's what's so tragically stupid about this argument that you keep putting forth. When those people end up in the emergency room, you're paying for it.

People like me are actually trying to save you money, but you're so trapped by your ideological fanaticism that you can't look at the problem in a rational way, and you won't let us help you.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Cellulose
Somewhat off-topic, but as a Diabetic type 1 what sort of insurance prices would I be looking at in the US?

If you're talking about a private plan you probably can't get any insurance at all. If you can, it will probably cost you several thousand dollars a month.

But on the upside, the health care you won't be getting is #1 in the world.

Or join a group plan at your job and pay about ~$100/mo

Assuming your job offers such an affordable plan. Most don't.

You are kidding, right? Most all of them do.

I always laugh at people who think healthcare insurance is so expensive. My guess is they have never shopped for healthcare insurance. You can get a pretty good INSURANCE plan for 100 bucks a month for single. And most all employers offer OUTSTANDING INSURANCE plans for a FAMILY for under 400 a month.

People often don't understand the difference between insurance and healthcare and lump them together. It's INSURANCE.

No, you really can't for just "$100" per month. Maybe that's with a $500 deductible, limited choice of doctors, limited drug plan, no dental, etc.