Question for UHC supporters

[shadow9d9]

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.

If insurances won't cover you or refuse coverage of your "pre-existing conditions", you are SOL without the cash. SO, YES there is such a wait... an indefinite wait for most and a "never" for many.

My wife has about 4 exemptions and for her and our child for regular coverage and me for emergency insurance, it is $5000+ a year, not counting medications or copays.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

I am self employed with my father and it would be too expensive for him at his age to join the "group" plan... $10+.

I guess I should quit right?

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

I am self employed and my wife is home with our child. She was denied every insurance in the state until she found one that exempted her from pretty much everything but normal checkups. Our son is healthy, and I only qualified for catastrophic only. $5000 a year without prescription coverage or copays included. After all is said and done it is over $8000 a year.

Pretty good eh!?


"I always laugh at people who think healthcare insurance is so expensive. My guess is they have never shopped for healthcare insurance"

Try shopping for healthcare when the entire state denies you, asswipe.

I laugh at people who are braindead. Maybe UHC would help you out on that.

 

[Snoop]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

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.

I am self employed and my wife is home with our child. She was denied every insurance in the state until she found one that exempted her from pretty much everything but normal checkups. Our son is healthy, and I only qualified for catastrophic only. $5000 a year without prescription coverage or copays included. After all is said and done it is over $8000 a year.

Pretty good eh!?


"I always laugh at people who think healthcare insurance is so expensive. My guess is they have never shopped for healthcare insurance"

Try shopping for healthcare when the entire state denies you, asswipe.

I laugh at people who are braindead. Maybe UHC would help you out on that.

Wow, thats seems like a lot. I am self employed as well and have my myself, wife, 2 kids on a plan that is around 200 a month, 80/20, 4000 deductible, 6 visits per year paid + most routine tests. For another 200 a month i could drop the deductible to 2k, and get copays for even non routine stuff.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Snoop

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

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.

I am self employed and my wife is home with our child. She was denied every insurance in the state until she found one that exempted her from pretty much everything but normal checkups. Our son is healthy, and I only qualified for catastrophic only. $5000 a year without prescription coverage or copays included. After all is said and done it is over $8000 a year.

Pretty good eh!?


"I always laugh at people who think healthcare insurance is so expensive. My guess is they have never shopped for healthcare insurance"

Try shopping for healthcare when the entire state denies you, asswipe.

I laugh at people who are braindead. Maybe UHC would help you out on that.

Wow, thats seems like a lot. I am self employed as well and have my myself, wife, 2 kids on a plan that is around 200 a month, 80/20, 4000 deductible, 6 visits per year paid + most routine tests. For another 200 a month i could drop the deductible to 2k, and get copays for even non routine stuff.

It's a reality.

Health Insurance is only cheap if they are pretty sure you won't have anything wrong with you for a long time.

Try having any chronic condition that requires an ER visit 2-3 times a year + 5-6 doctors visits a year and NO ONE will even touch you.

 

[TruePaige]

Just did a quick check for someone 30 years old, female, 5'9", 200 pounds. As an example. I'm not sure if there is a better combo but I thought that is a low risk but still average person. Males that are young and old people in general get much worse.

110 dollars a month is the cheapest I could find with NO doctors visit coverage, NO prescription Coverage, and it costs 3,000 dollars to go to an ER if not admitted, add 20% of total costs if admitted.

That was just a quick summary, I'm sure more horrible catches apply. Health Insurance is OUTRAGEOUS and I can't wait for this system to be abolished.

 

[Carmen813]

http://www.factcheck.org/polit...t-run_health_care.html

About Obama's healthcare proposal, and the ads that have been running on TV comparing his plan to Canadian and British health care systems. Long story short: the ad is full of crap.

As for private health insurance, I get to question 3 before the form tells me to stop filling it out and to look into high risk insurance options. That's as a 24 year old male, non-smoker, non-drug user, low volume drinking....cancer survivor.

It's like going to the BMW dealer and putting both your hands on the glass windows while staring inside.

Luckily, I live in NYS and have state sponsored care, which has far and away been the best medical care I have ever had. I'm stilling fighting my old private insurance company (well, doctor really) about a $500 bill he never sent me. It just arrived from some collections agency 2 years after I finished treatment without any warning. Given that I was under my mother's insurance at the time, I'm not sure how they can even bill me.

My wife's company wanted $350 a month to cover both of us, which seemed reasonable, but since she only makes about $1500 a month and I've been unemployed since I graduated in January, we had to cancel it and stick with the state program. Oh well, 3 more months till grad school starts

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Except they'd still go there because they wouldn't have UHC. duh... they are ILLEGALS!

 

[Acanthus]

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.

Private health insurance will still be available.

Many americans have no care at all, because it is far too costly.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

Actually, its not even in the top 10.

Which is sad, considering we do all the innovation and invent the shit.

 

[GTKeeper]

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.

LOL, yes they are your problem. Guess who subsidizes the uninsured? You do!

The cost for everyone goes up for each person who is NOT insured. Insurance should be mandatory like car insurance for health care. Until that happens watch your costs rise every year.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Except they'd still go there because they wouldn't have UHC. duh... they are ILLEGALS!

So? They are still your problem.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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.

Actually, its not even in the top 10.

Which is sad, considering we do all the innovation and invent the shit.

myth

 

[CitizenKain]

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.

spidey07 lying in another thread, who would have thought!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Except they'd still go there because they wouldn't have UHC. duh... they are ILLEGALS!

So? They are still your problem.

The point is - UHC won't solve that problem. Securing the borders, strict enforcement of immigration law will though. But that's a different subject. UHC wouldn't be for illegals(unless open border libs got their way).

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

Considering government health insurance has an overhead of 1% while private insurance has an overhead of 20-30%, yes costs will go down. That plus the fact that the government has a greater bargaining power than individual insurance companies. Especially on drugs.

The only way this is not true is if you are an idiot who doesn't like facts/figures/logic (or as i like to call them: 'republicans')

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

Considering government health insurance has an overhead of 1% while private insurance has an overhead of 20-30%, yes costs will go down.

You slow or something? This has been addressed many times in multiple threads as bunk. Medicare pushes many of those costs you see in private insurance onto the medical providers. So while technically correct, the only thing they are measuring is paper pushing and nothing else. Their paper pushing may be cheaper than private insurance but that isnt the only overhead cost involved.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

Is that your objection?
The government can give you a $1625 taxcut and be revenue neutral.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Considering government health insurance has an overhead of 1% while private insurance has an overhead of 20-30%, yes costs will go down. That plus the fact that the government has a greater bargaining power than individual insurance companies. Especially on drugs.

The only way this is not true is if you are an idiot who doesn't like facts/figures/logic (or as i like to call them: 'republicans')

I'm neither an idiot nor a Republican.

And the government has rarely been ably to do ANYTHING on a cost-efficient basis. Their inefficiency will only get worse as programs get larger. IF we believe this mythical 1-5% overhead number, do we believe they can keep that up? Will overhead not increase when the number of people on Medicare jumps from 42 million to 300 million?

It's been my experience that the Fed is a "reverse corporation". Corporations tend to have high overhead when they're small. They hire 4-5 employees, buy equipment, etc. When they grow, that equipment and those employees work harder and more, and overhead as a % of revenue drops.

With the gov't, they throw very few resources at something initially. Hire one person and give them a phone. But the minute you need another person, you have to hire two: one to work and one to supervise. Add a couple more people a POW!; another supervisor, PLUS a supervisor for the supervisors.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

If every other crap country can do UHC with a 6% tax, so can we. Hell, I pay over 17% of my income nd healthcare and we have terrible coverage.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Phokus

Considering government health insurance has an overhead of 1% while private insurance has an overhead of 20-30%, yes costs will go down. That plus the fact that the government has a greater bargaining power than individual insurance companies. Especially on drugs.

The only way this is not true is if you are an idiot who doesn't like facts/figures/logic (or as i like to call them: 'republicans')

I'm neither an idiot nor a Republican.

And the government has rarely been ably to do ANYTHING on a cost-efficient basis. Their inefficiency will only get worse as programs get larger. IF we believe this mythical 1-5% overhead number, do we believe they can keep that up? Will overhead not increase when the number of people on Medicare jumps from 42 million to 300 million?

It's been my experience that the Fed is a "reverse corporation". Corporations tend to have high overhead when they're small. They hire 4-5 employees, buy equipment, etc. When they grow, that equipment and those employees work harder and more, and overhead as a % of revenue drops.

With the gov't, they throw very few resources at something initially. Hire one person and give them a phone. But the minute you need another person, you have to hire two: one to work and one to supervise. Add a couple more people a POW!; another supervisor, PLUS a supervisor for the supervisors.

Which is why healthcare costs here keep going up while people in nationalized healthcare countries pay half as much as we do? And they cover everyone while we have 50 million uninsured? And they don't deny people based on prexisting conditions like we do?

If your hypothesis is correct, universal healthcare would cost more than private care, not less like it does in other countries.

"Their inefficiency will only get worse as programs get larger. IF we believe this mythical 1-5% overhead number, do we believe they can keep that up? Will overhead not increase when the number of people on Medicare jumps from 42 million to 300 million?" <----- this doesn't even make sense. As more people join the federal health insurance, costs decrease. If you know anything about finance or accounting, fixed costs will get spread over more and more people while variable costs will rise in proportion to the number of people who enroll. The net result is overhead as a percentage will go down. Please don't talk about things you have no idea about.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Is that your objection?
The government can give you a $1625 taxcut and be revenue neutral.

How do you do that for 100 million+ tax returns though? You can't give each person a separate tax credit- you'd be giving them a credit for a benefit they didn't receive. How do you know that the employer WOULD HAVE paid $6500 in health care costs IF they had offered coverage? Congress would have to just pull a number out of their collective ass. But then people with good benefits currently would get screwed. So, they'd intentionally look for employers that offer private plans (b/c the credit wouldn't be worth it). That would likely mean that the more well-paid people would no longer be part of the UHC pool, which would drive up costs for UHC since the big earners wouldn't be subsidizing the poor.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Health care costs $13,000.

Scenario A:
Your employer pays $6500
You pay $6500

Scenario B:
Your employer gives you $6500
You pay $1625 in taxes
You pay $13000 in UHC costs

Net loss: $1625

And yes, if you expect costs to go down under a UHC plan you're crazy.

Considering government health insurance has an overhead of 1% while private insurance has an overhead of 20-30%, yes costs will go down.

You slow or something? This has been addressed many times in multiple threads as bunk. Medicare pushes many of those costs you see in private insurance onto the medical providers. So while technically correct, the only thing they are measuring is paper pushing and nothing else. Their paper pushing may be cheaper than private insurance but that isnt the only overhead cost involved.

Tell me, do you need multiple CEO's with tens of millions of dollars each in compensation with universal healthcare? Do you need as many accountants? Do you need as many buildings? Do you need as many salesmen (do you even need salesmen with UHC?)? Do you need multiple IT systems/infrastructure?

UHC is less expensive, that's a fact. Just look at how much other countries are paying covering their entire population vs. us who only covers part of the population.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: sactoking

It's been my experience that the Fed is a "reverse corporation". Corporations tend to have high overhead when they're small. They hire 4-5 employees, buy equipment, etc. When they grow, that equipment and those employees work harder and more, and overhead as a % of revenue drops.

Nah. When corporations get large, their executive salaries just grow tremendously, keeping their overhead high.