-
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!
Single Payer Health Care
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I've had two reasons come up this last week to say yes, hearing a care provider complain about the complexity of working with different insurers and me wishing I had had some sort of coverable injury so I could get massage and chiropractic therapy.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
I believe that the employer sponsored health insurance and economics , which suits most Americans fine and dandy today, might not be as suitable for most Americans within ten years. Imo, many jobs now done by humans will be replaced with automation. This is why starting by 2026, I'd like to see a universal basic income benefit of $1,000/month for each American who is presently a non-recipient of social security and who would then be between the ages of 18 and 65. This broad based economic benefit system would replace the current welfare system for particular needy people. Also by then, I'd favor an expansion of Medicare Part A and Part B from medicare insurance for seniors only to universal health insurance for every American citizen. This universal basic income benefit system and Medicare-for-all universal health care insurance could be well funded by a VAT system at a rate of 10 percent along with modest income tax and excise tax increases.
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
No.
The government can't handle the post office. What makes anybody think it could handle health care? The USA is too big. It MIGHT work on a state basis, but not for something larger.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Most seniors love their Social Security and Medicare, no politician in his right mind would dare suggest doing away with these social programs beloved by the vast majority of their elderly recipients; so then, when automation displaces many workers, we should have Medicare and Social Security for all.
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I am on social security. This is an entirely different program from medicare.
I am on medicare, too....but if I had to depend upon medicare alone, I'd be dead now. Not figuratively, LITERALLY.
the cost of medication, on Medicare, would be so high for me as to make it impossible. One prescription I take costs someone over $18,000 a month. And no, that's not a typo. After the first month, all I would have to do is come up with $12 of it, but that first month would cost me over $5,000, and I don't have it. That represents 2.5 times my monthly income.
But I have a 'Senior Advantage' program where Kaiser Permanente takes the money SS reserves for medicare, and uses it to pay my health insurance premiums, and I'm on a special grant which reduces my co-pays to, well...nothing.
Both are private insurance companies/grants.
If the government would come up with a program like THAT for everybody, I wouldn't have a problem, but I'll admit that I am taking my own situation into consideration and I'm selfish. I'd like to stick around for a bit longer, and not be dead only because I can't afford the medication that will keep me around.
I know how other nations (with single payer systems and 'universal' health care) deal with people who have what I do, and, well....what they have to go through is beyond assininity. Paperwork, bureaucracy, teams which decide who gets treatment and who doesn't based upon guidelines that have very little to do with the specific patient or his/her doctors.
Shoot, I had a knee replacement ten years ago, and have been talking to a Canadian woman who needed one at the same time I did. Because of the standard waiting times for 'elective' procedures, she had to wait four years to get hers, and as a result, was left with a limited range of motion and other problems.
Nope. If the government comes up with some way to help pay premiums for private companies that the patients can choose among, that might work. Single payer?
Not a chance,
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Medicare supplemental insurance done with private insurance fills the coverage gaps with Medicare. I'd be in favor of expanding Medicare Parts A and B coverage from covering only senior citizens to covering every American citizen who'd have the option of deciding which Medicare supplement health insurance coverage best fits his/her medical needs.
Last edited:
Here is a good reason to not let the govt be in control of healthcare.
Charlie Gard case - Wikipedia
Yeah I'm not ok with the govt deciding whether I am worth the risk of treatment or not.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
It seems to work ok in every other developed country on the planet.
Augustus
…
You can still get private insurance if you want in most countries, and you would still be paying less on average than the average American.
Standard waiting times tend to be a few months for such things in most countries. They even paid for my mum to spend 2 weeks in a residential health spa for physio after her knee replacement.
And while no system is perfect, I can guarantee there are exponentially more horror stories in private systems (people going untreated, bankruptcies, insurance non/partial payouts, etc), not to mention the major problem of chronic overtreatment and overcharging that occurs.
i read it. made no sense in respect to universal health care, or single payer insurance.
the government doesn't handle the post office. when you go to the usps website, you get a ".com" and not a ".gov"
US Post Office Will Be Busy On Tax Day, But Won't Use Taxpayer Dollars
Welcome | USPS
Shad
Veteran Member
The USPS is an agency created by the US government as per the Constitution and created by the first POTUS.... One isolated link you pull from a website does not change this nor does a lack of .gov.
Postal Service Act - Wikipedia
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Awww, but "the government can't run the post office" is their primary talking point! It's unfair to argue against their super cool librul destroying pwns with your inconsequential "facts" and "evidence".
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The Democrats use the same playbook tricks every election cycle. They promise freebies in exchange for votes. These promises come from the same people who brought you the collusion delusion. It is not practical, but since it promises something for nothing, Progressives fall for it every time. No amount of common sense will get through.
What is behind the psychology of false promises for votes, that makes Progressives powerless to resist?
I would like to explain how this affect works, so young Progressives have some resistance to the virus. This is a health care discussion, and I am providing some free heath care, with no cost to the tax payer. I will use the example of the collusion delusion, since this promise, became a virus, that ran its course, and now we have 20/20 hindsight to discuss how the virus mutated.
What makes Progressives vulnerable, is they tend to use emotional thinking, instead of rational thinking. Emotional thinking is when you think using feelings instead of logic. Free health care feels good.
When the brain creates memory, emotional tags are added to the sensory content, as it is written to the cerebral matter. Our memory has both sensory content and an attached emotional valance. Our strongest memories tend to have the strongest feelings; marriage, graduation, birth of a child, trauma, glory days, etc.
The value of this schema, for the animal brain, is if a similar situation is encountered, and our memory is triggered, the animal will react to the attached feeling tag, without having to think. For example, if the dog saw a similar food, that once tasted good, and was good for them, they will feel that feeling tag from their memory, and act on the feeling, without having to think; they quickly eat.
Since memory has both sensory content and a feeling tag, we can approach our binary memory from either side. I can think about food; sensory content, and start to feel hungry; content leads to feelings. Or I can feel hungry, just before lunch, and images of possible food items will appear in my imagination; feeling leads to content. This is the same memory, approached from two different angles. The emotional thinker approaches memory one way; emotion first, while the rational thinker uses the other way; content first.
The disadvantage of emotional thinking has to due with a lower level differentiation. There are only a relatively small number of emotions, which are used in every memory writing process. This small set of emotions are recycled and reused for similar situations. If I asked you to name your 10 favorite foods; best taste feelings, the same emotional tag is applied to all 10.
Sensory content; the five senses, is much more diversified. For example, each snowflake is unique and different. In terms of emotions, snow in any form is felt the same way; one emotional tag used for any snow flake or pile of flakes. The skier feels fun, while the commuter feels stress.
In the case of the collusion delusion, the main emotional triggers, used to initiate emotional thinking were hate and fear. Everyone hated Trump and everyone feared what he might do, since he was colluding with the enemy. This was the narrative used to set the emotional stage. Because there are only a small number of feelings, and because these are reused for many things, the problem that appeared was that these two feeling tags not only induced real time collusion memory, but also personal memory. The overreaction was due to this composite affect. The fear triggered, all your fears, since these all use the same tag. The result was an exaggerated perception of fear, that contained personal baggage. Emotional thinkers are very vulnerable to shady people, this way.
For many, even though the facts of the Mueller investigation were accepted, and the emotional tag changed about collusion, this partial change will not change the entrained personal baggage. Since this was entrained with the original induction, feelings linger, causing doubt to remain, due to the shared feeling.
Rational thinking; content before emotions, will also induce feelings, but the feelings will fluctuate as we think about the content. The changing feeling males it harder for personal baggage to consolidate around a single lingering feeling.
For example, say I am remembering a restaurant I visited. I will review my sensory content using a timeline. The place was in a nice location; secure and happy feeling, but there was some litter near the door; slightly negative feeling. The hostess was very pretty; desire feeling, and pleasant, but our waitress was slow; frustrated feeling. The food was excellent; tasty feeling, but the portions were small and a little pricey; stress. My emotions are all over the place, allowing me to focus on the immediate present, without enough time for personal bag to fully entrain via common feelings. If I had gone to the restaurant with an attitude; skeptical, this tag will flavor my real time memory and cause personal baggage to entrain. The latter makes one vulnerable to the collusion delusion virus.
What is behind the psychology of false promises for votes, that makes Progressives powerless to resist?
I would like to explain how this affect works, so young Progressives have some resistance to the virus. This is a health care discussion, and I am providing some free heath care, with no cost to the tax payer. I will use the example of the collusion delusion, since this promise, became a virus, that ran its course, and now we have 20/20 hindsight to discuss how the virus mutated.
What makes Progressives vulnerable, is they tend to use emotional thinking, instead of rational thinking. Emotional thinking is when you think using feelings instead of logic. Free health care feels good.
When the brain creates memory, emotional tags are added to the sensory content, as it is written to the cerebral matter. Our memory has both sensory content and an attached emotional valance. Our strongest memories tend to have the strongest feelings; marriage, graduation, birth of a child, trauma, glory days, etc.
The value of this schema, for the animal brain, is if a similar situation is encountered, and our memory is triggered, the animal will react to the attached feeling tag, without having to think. For example, if the dog saw a similar food, that once tasted good, and was good for them, they will feel that feeling tag from their memory, and act on the feeling, without having to think; they quickly eat.
Since memory has both sensory content and a feeling tag, we can approach our binary memory from either side. I can think about food; sensory content, and start to feel hungry; content leads to feelings. Or I can feel hungry, just before lunch, and images of possible food items will appear in my imagination; feeling leads to content. This is the same memory, approached from two different angles. The emotional thinker approaches memory one way; emotion first, while the rational thinker uses the other way; content first.
The disadvantage of emotional thinking has to due with a lower level differentiation. There are only a relatively small number of emotions, which are used in every memory writing process. This small set of emotions are recycled and reused for similar situations. If I asked you to name your 10 favorite foods; best taste feelings, the same emotional tag is applied to all 10.
Sensory content; the five senses, is much more diversified. For example, each snowflake is unique and different. In terms of emotions, snow in any form is felt the same way; one emotional tag used for any snow flake or pile of flakes. The skier feels fun, while the commuter feels stress.
In the case of the collusion delusion, the main emotional triggers, used to initiate emotional thinking were hate and fear. Everyone hated Trump and everyone feared what he might do, since he was colluding with the enemy. This was the narrative used to set the emotional stage. Because there are only a small number of feelings, and because these are reused for many things, the problem that appeared was that these two feeling tags not only induced real time collusion memory, but also personal memory. The overreaction was due to this composite affect. The fear triggered, all your fears, since these all use the same tag. The result was an exaggerated perception of fear, that contained personal baggage. Emotional thinkers are very vulnerable to shady people, this way.
For many, even though the facts of the Mueller investigation were accepted, and the emotional tag changed about collusion, this partial change will not change the entrained personal baggage. Since this was entrained with the original induction, feelings linger, causing doubt to remain, due to the shared feeling.
Rational thinking; content before emotions, will also induce feelings, but the feelings will fluctuate as we think about the content. The changing feeling males it harder for personal baggage to consolidate around a single lingering feeling.
For example, say I am remembering a restaurant I visited. I will review my sensory content using a timeline. The place was in a nice location; secure and happy feeling, but there was some litter near the door; slightly negative feeling. The hostess was very pretty; desire feeling, and pleasant, but our waitress was slow; frustrated feeling. The food was excellent; tasty feeling, but the portions were small and a little pricey; stress. My emotions are all over the place, allowing me to focus on the immediate present, without enough time for personal bag to fully entrain via common feelings. If I had gone to the restaurant with an attitude; skeptical, this tag will flavor my real time memory and cause personal baggage to entrain. The latter makes one vulnerable to the collusion delusion virus.
Last edited:
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
The cost to taxpayers for expanding Medicare Part A and Part B from covering only senior citizens to covering every American would be less costly than what employer sponsored health insurance and private health insurance plans now cost Americans.
Expanding Medicare Part A and Part B health insurance coverage from 40 million American senior citizens to every legal American citizen would presently cost around $1.18 trillion annually. ( ca. $1.8 trillion for universal Medicare coverage - ca. $0.612 trillion for senior citizen Medicare coverage = ca. $1.18 trillion )
Senior citizens accounted for 34 percent of healthcare-related spending in 2010, a report from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows. Medical spending among the U.S. elderly - Journalist's Resource
Medicare Part A and Part B spending was $612 billion in 2017.
The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing
The ca. $1.18 trillion cost of expanding Medicare for all would be partly offset by the ca. $378 billion of cost savings with the elimination of federal Medicaid spending, the net cost then of expanding Medicare for all then would be ca. $802 billion annually in current dollars.
In 2017, Employers spent ca. $842 billion on health insurance coverage for their employees ( 160 million employees * $4,953 annual health insurance premiums/employee = $842 billion ) Employees spent ca. $226 billion in contributions to their employee sponsored health insurance plans. ( 160 million employees * $1,415 annual health insurance premiums/employee = $226 billion )
Average Annual Single Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance
Expanding Medicare Part A and Part B health insurance coverage to include all Americans in 2017 would have cost $802 billion compared to $1,068 billion spent by employees and employers on their health insurance coverage in 2017; So then, universal Medicare Part A and Part B in 2017 would have been ca. $266 billion less costly overall to society than the status quo system of employer sponsored health insurance coverage.
The cost for the lack of coverage for prescription drugs with Medicare Part B medical insurance coverage is nearly offset by its lower deductible cost to its recipients than the higher deductible costs to recipients of employer sponsored health insurance plans. Medicare Part B's annual deductible costs to each of its recipients in 2017 was $183 compared to the average annual deductible cost of ca. $1,573 to each recipient of employer sponsored health care insurance.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/venessawong/health-care-costs-rise-2018
Upon analyzing the numbers, replacing employer sponsored health care insurance plans with expanded Medicare Part A and Part B medical insurance coverage from covering only seniors to universal health insurance coverage would save our society overall ca. $266 billion in current dollars spent annually for health insurance costs....
Bernie Sander's Medicare for All, inclusive of universal prescription drug coverage as well as zero deductibles, zero co-pays and zero co-insurance financial liabilities for insured recipients has been estimated, based on a model projection done by the Mercatus health care research center, to save our society overall nearly $200 billion in current dollars spent annually towards health care.
Reference: That study going around on Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan comes with a big catch — the US would actually be saving money overall on healthcare
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
Medicare works just fine. The State isn't delivering healthcare.
sooda
Veteran Member
Most of the healthcare dollar is spent on Senior Citizens, premature babies and those poor souls with chronic diseases. Last number I saw was 60%.. Healthy working people with children use very little healthcare.
And, with the "graying of America" that has been expected for 30 years as the baby boomers moved thru the system like a pig thru a python. Your stuff about emotion and freebies is irrational nonsense. .. just another excuse why America can't compete with other first world nations. We are rich, but don't have the will to fix healthcare.. No surprise there. Public service employees have great healthcare coverage.. Ask any Congressman or Senator.
Another thing you avoided considering is a healthy workforce is more productive.
Further, ASK your doctor if he'd rather treat a small flare up IN THE EARLY STAGES or CRITICAL INFERNO.
Trump is OK if you think America needs another clot like Kim Jung Un or Maduro, or Bashar Assad, the President of Cuba, or some Iranian Mullah.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
If employers were no longer required to spend on healthcare, their expenses would drop and they could deliver their products and services at lower prices. Do you know if the saving has been estimated and included in the savings for the consumer?The cost to taxpayers for expanding Medicare Part A and Part B from covering only senior citizens to covering every American would be less costly than what employer sponsored health insurance and private health insurance plans now cost Americans.
Expanding Medicare Part A and Part B health insurance coverage from 40 million American senior citizens to every legal American citizen would presently cost around $1.18 trillion annually. ( ca. $1.8 trillion for universal Medicare coverage - ca. $0.612 trillion for senior citizen Medicare coverage = ca. $1.18 trillion )
Senior citizens accounted for 34 percent of healthcare-related spending in 2010, a report from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows. Medical spending among the U.S. elderly - Journalist's Resource
Medicare Part A and Part B spending was $612 billion in 2017.
The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing
The ca. $1.18 trillion cost of expanding Medicare for all would be partly offset by the ca. $378 billion of cost savings with the elimination of federal Medicaid spending, the net cost then of expanding Medicare for all then would be ca. $802 billion annually in current dollars.
In 2017, Employers spent ca. $842 billion on health insurance coverage for their employees ( 160 million employees * $4,953 annual health insurance premiums/employee = $842 billion ) Employees spent ca. $226 billion in contributions to their employee sponsored health insurance plans. ( 160 million employees * $1,415 annual health insurance premiums/employee = $226 billion )
Average Annual Single Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance
Expanding Medicare Part A and Part B health insurance coverage to include all Americans in 2017 would have cost $802 billion compared to $1,068 billion spent by employees and employers on their health insurance coverage in 2017; So then, universal Medicare Part A and Part B in 2017 would have been ca. $266 billion less costly overall to society than the status quo system of employer sponsored health insurance coverage.
The cost for the lack of coverage for prescription drugs with Medicare Part B medical insurance coverage is nearly offset by its lower deductible cost to its recipients than the higher deductible costs to recipients of employer sponsored health insurance plans. Medicare Part B's annual deductible costs to each of its recipients in 2017 was $183 compared to the average annual deductible cost of ca. $1,573 to each recipient of employer sponsored health care insurance.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/venessawong/health-care-costs-rise-2018
Upon analyzing the numbers, replacing employer sponsored health care insurance plans with expanded Medicare Part A and Part B medical insurance coverage from covering only seniors to universal health insurance coverage would save our society overall ca. $266 billion in current dollars spent annually for health insurance costs....
Bernie Sander's Medicare for All, inclusive of universal prescription drug coverage as well as zero deductibles, zero co-pays and zero co-insurance financial liabilities for insured recipients has been estimated, based on a model projection done by the Mercatus health care research center, to save our society overall nearly $200 billion in current dollars spent annually towards health care.
Reference: That study going around on Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan comes with a big catch — the US would actually be saving money overall on healthcare