Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Medicare has lower bureaucratic costs than any private health insurer. Fact. Ask anyone over 65 whether they think Medicare is a failure or not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Universal health care would be a good thing
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
Could does not mean right now, today.
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
Source for this info?
Military is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government which can not be privately done on the whole. Can you actually claim that the US military is cost effective? and how?
NoahideHiker
Religious Headbanger
Ask anyone over 65 how cost effective it is and how percentage of coverage compares to private insurance.
Alceste
Vagabond
Does too.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Medicare-for-All is the prescription for taming health care costs, says insurance expert
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf
Medicare Rights Center-Fast Facts
HHS/OIG-Audit--"Adequacy of Medicare's Managed Care Payments After the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, (A-14-00-00212)"
My claim is that when we use the military, rather than Haliburton or Blackwell, we save money. Private contractors earn 5 times what soldiers earn. Do you disagree?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Exactly. Have you done this? I have.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So, Rick, to recap:
Universal Health Coverage would save us billions of dollars total over what we're paying now
Universal Health Coverage costs less in taxes than what we're paying now.
UHC saves lives and improves health. In particular, it lowers infant mortality.
But you're still against it because:
You're afraid that if our health system worked, more Mexicans would cross the border to use it.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, you believe that unlike the experience of every other country, UHC will cost us more money, even though it saves money in every country where it has been implemented.
Your political philosophy, or self-image, is in favor of the free market and opposed to government programs providing services that can be provided in the free market, and you think UHC violates this.
Would that be right?
Universal Health Coverage would save us billions of dollars total over what we're paying now
Universal Health Coverage costs less in taxes than what we're paying now.
UHC saves lives and improves health. In particular, it lowers infant mortality.
But you're still against it because:
You're afraid that if our health system worked, more Mexicans would cross the border to use it.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, you believe that unlike the experience of every other country, UHC will cost us more money, even though it saves money in every country where it has been implemented.
Your political philosophy, or self-image, is in favor of the free market and opposed to government programs providing services that can be provided in the free market, and you think UHC violates this.
Would that be right?
So, Autodidact, to recap:
You believe that adding all these countless folks to the insurance rolls will not increase the amount of wait time to see the doctor even though we will not have one more hospital bed or available doctor appointment.
You believe that no matter how many of our brown brothers from the south sneak across our border and use our medical services it will not affect the cost of a NHP.
You believe the government will be sucessful in dictating the amount paid for medical services and the medical profession will work longer and harder for less money.
You believe that doctors will not refuse to accept new patients who have a NHP insurance policy without an additional supplemental policy just like they do medicare patients.
You believe our senior citizens are happy with medicare.
You believe our inept government can run a health care program and provide superior services for less expense.
You believe that everyone is entitled to an expensive medical procedure even though they have no money and their life is not in jeopardy.
You believe that people will not clog the medical system with small complaints and folks with serious illnesses will not have to wait even longer than they do now to recieve medical attention.
You believe that doctors are overpaid and do not deserve to be among the highest paid workers.
You believe that the best doctors will not seek employment or apply their art elsewhere to the highest bidder and the caliber of the medical profession will not diminish in America under a NHP.
Would that be right?
You believe that adding all these countless folks to the insurance rolls will not increase the amount of wait time to see the doctor even though we will not have one more hospital bed or available doctor appointment.
You believe that no matter how many of our brown brothers from the south sneak across our border and use our medical services it will not affect the cost of a NHP.
You believe the government will be sucessful in dictating the amount paid for medical services and the medical profession will work longer and harder for less money.
You believe that doctors will not refuse to accept new patients who have a NHP insurance policy without an additional supplemental policy just like they do medicare patients.
You believe our senior citizens are happy with medicare.
You believe our inept government can run a health care program and provide superior services for less expense.
You believe that everyone is entitled to an expensive medical procedure even though they have no money and their life is not in jeopardy.
You believe that people will not clog the medical system with small complaints and folks with serious illnesses will not have to wait even longer than they do now to recieve medical attention.
You believe that doctors are overpaid and do not deserve to be among the highest paid workers.
You believe that the best doctors will not seek employment or apply their art elsewhere to the highest bidder and the caliber of the medical profession will not diminish in America under a NHP.
Would that be right?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What was your answer to my questions? I'm sure you agree that good manners require answering a question before posing your own.
Who is "we're" ?
The infant mortality rate improvement is indisputable.
And use up all these "savings" you love to mention. This is why comparing the United States to other countries who have a NHP is apples and orange comparisons.
Yes, because we have a different situation here in America. You cannot allow a flood of poor uneducated people who have a subgroup within them that carry diseases that we have wiped out 50 years ago crossing our borders, using our system and paying no taxes. I already showed you in another thread that 97% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. Most are not rich people by the way. If the NHP was funded by educated employed folks who pay a fair share of taxes, your examples would work. Offering everything to everyone would just dilute the quality of care people who are paying the bills would recieve. This is a good deal for the have nots but a lousy deal for the folks who work hard and play by the rules and pay the lions share of taxes.
You also fail to mention that doctors would be working harder for less. These are smart people who will find a way to circumvent this economic burden you wish to shift on them because they are the best educated and hard working among us. They deserve what they have and should not be penalised for the shortcomings of others.
Partially right. Nice straw man attempt.
But RR, immigrants are already coming over our borders, using our hospitals and not paying. I care for undocumented patients everyday in my hospital. Everyone knows they couldn't pay if they wanted to, but we have to care for them. A single-payer system wouldn't have any effect on this. The taxpayer would pick up the tab either way.
Not so my friend. We pick up the tab for a life threatening problem a undocumented person might have. We do not currently offer them free all inclusive health care. Additional services to additional people will cost money and someone is going to have to pay for this or someone is going to have to work harder for less.
Talk about voodoo economics.
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Alceste
Vagabond
Neither do we (Canada). You have to prove you're a citizen, except for visits to free / anonymous clinics - which most Canadians avoid because they're teeming with the diseased, poor, uneducated Americans who flood across our border to take advantage of our health care system.
Alceste
Vagabond
Wouldn't it be nice if you, too, lived in a country where it was possible to obtain statistics on how many times a year your local hospitals report incidents of fleas / fruitflies / rats / cockroaches via the freedom of information act? Alas, it's not to be - your hospitals are private, and as such there is no way for you to access their administrative records via FOI legislation.
Anyway, what do you feel a single batch of figures released for political gain by the UK's Conservative Party (who favour the privatisation of the NHC) indicates, when divorced from comparison with actual scientific research?
I work in an FOI office in the UK, by the way - this is how it works: Someone submits a request along the lines of "how many times did so-and-so call the exterminators", and then in 20 days they get a number. Nothing else - just a number. This they can use for whatever propagandistic purposes they desire, ie to create the public perception UK hospitals are infested with vermin... and therefore you should vote Conservative.
Unfortunately, some people tend to swallow such PR industry nonsense hook, line, sinker and pole. Oh well! I guess there's a sucker born every minute.
Let me ask you this though, with the actual number of pest sightings remaining undisclosed, would you prefer to go to a hospital that called in pest controllers more, or less frequently?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Correct. In fact, I think it will help.
No, because illegal immigrants pay taxes.
Not exactly dictating, but negotiating from a stronger position, yes. No, I don't think doctors will work any harder, nor will they have to.
Not unless they want to restrict their practice to 5% of the patients or less. That's their prerogative.
I know they are. I work with around 30 of them, and they're all in much better position than the rest of us who don't have it.
No, for that you have to elect Democrats.
Not necessarily. I believe it's cheaper to treat them in a clinic than in the emergency room.
Correct. I believe that's the experience of the many countries that have universal coverage; most people don't much like going to the doctor.
No opinion. Did I say that? I think some doctors are underpaid, actually. How is this relevant?
Correct.
See above.
Mostly I think our experience would be similar to that of the many other countries that have done it. Smart people learn from other people's experience.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, RR. You seem to be agreeing with me.
We do pick up the tab for acute care for undocumented persons, and "acute" is pretty much defined by the client -- if they show up in the ER they get seen.
True, they do not get "all inclusive"care, but neither do Americans if they show up with similar complaints.