Occasio-Cortez on Medicare for all.

[Salvador]

People do realize that they are already paying for other people's healthcare, right? That's how insurance works, no matter if it is by Corporate America or the government. Of course, with Corporate America you get the for-profit tax added on. I would think that with the more people paying into the same system there would be less variance in the flux of overall cost.

With everybody paying in the same system, you'd have young healthy Americans subsidizing the health care costs of some persons who have unhealthy habits; i.e. smokers, drug addicts. Young healthy adults are financially better off with just catastrophic medical insurance, Self insuring against small losses and relying on insurance for catastrophic losses is way more cost effective than insuring against all risks.

Health insurers are typically required to pay out at least 80 percent of their insured premiums for valid medical provider service claims; this eliminates extraordinary profits being made by medical health insurance providers.

 

[youknowme]

With everybody paying in the same system, you'd have young healthy Americans subsidizing the health care costs of some persons who have unhealthy habits; i.e. smokers, drug addicts. Young healthy adults are financially better off with just catastrophic medical insurance, Self insuring against small losses and relying on insurance for catastrophic losses is way more cost effective than insuring against all risks.

Actually single payer healthcare would promote healthier living. When given access to healthcare people tend to get more regular check ups which leads to more early detection and preventive treatment, which as we all know is by far the cheapest route.

 

[Salvador]

Actually single payer healthcare would promote healthier living. When given access to healthcare people tend to get more regular check ups which leads to more early detection and preventive treatment, which as we all know is by far the cheapest route.

I wonder how many medically unnecessary screenings or exams get done when the insured has nothing to loose at the taxpayer's expense?

 

[fantome profane]

I wonder how many medically unnecessary screenings or exams get done when the insured has nothing to loose at the taxpayer's expense?

Vs how many expensive medical procedures that could have been avoided if the condition had been caught earlier. Or how many lives are lost for lack of proper screening and care.

 

[Shad]

I wonder how many medically unnecessary screenings or exams get done when the insured has nothing to loose at the taxpayer's expense?

I will give you example from my own experience. My current doctor refuses to provide any prescription beyond 2 months and call-in refills for medication I have used for over a decade. My previous doctor would provide a prescription for 6 months and would do call in. Guess which one makes more money due to the method used?

He also does other little trick to forces his patients to visit more often such as refusing to provide a prescription if the appoint is not for said prescription. Even if I am there at his office... I have to make an separate appointment and come back like 4 weeks later.

 

[youknowme]

I wonder how many medically unnecessary screenings or exams get done when the insured has nothing to loose at the taxpayer's expense?

You are already paying for the uninsured who get sick can't work and have to go on medicare/medicaid. Personally, I rather pay to prevent someone of dying to cancer than pay for them to die of cancer.

 

[Salvador]

You are already paying for the uninsured who get sick can't work and have to go on medicare/medicaid. Personally, I rather pay to prevent someone of dying to cancer than pay for them to die of cancer.

I don't mind taxpayer assistance for paying the health care costs of the most needy impoverished persons or elderly persons, but I don't expect the commoner folk to pay my health care costs or medical bills of my fellow privileged class; that'd likely happen if there were a single payer system.

 

[Shad]

With everybody paying in the same system, you'd have young healthy Americans subsidizing the health care costs of some persons who have unhealthy habits; i.e. smokers, drug addicts. Young healthy adults are financially better off with just catastrophic medical insurance, Self insuring against small losses and relying on insurance for catastrophic losses is way more cost effective than insuring against all risks.

Health insurers are typically required to pay out at least 80 percent of their insured premiums for valid medical provider service claims; this eliminates extraordinary profits being made by medical health insurance providers.

Toss in an aging population. If NHC is passed millions of people that never paid a dime for decades now have coverage on the dime of the current and next generations. Another example of the previous generations passing their debt on to the next.

 

[fantome profane]

Toss in an aging population. If NHC is passed millions of people that never paid a dime for decades now have coverage on the dime of the current and next generations. Another example of the previous generations passing their debt on to the next.

But they are going to end up paying for it anyway. There is no way around that. The only question is do you want the most effective cheapest system, or the least effective and most expensive.

 

[Shad]

But they are going to end up paying for it anyway.

Yup. Some willingly, some by force of government.

There is no way around that.

There are many but it will most likely collapse NHC in it's infancy. The US is "so late to the party" so to speak that advocates have to combat a far more entrenched system both on the business side and political. This will require heavy handed laws rendering the private industry illegal for the most part in my view

The only question is do you want the most effective cheapest system, or the least effective and most expensive.

Quality matters. Cheap and effective with low quality is not really appealing unless one is poor. For example Vancouver's Children's Hospital can not handle extreme cases so must send those cases to Seattle.... Like my nephew. Cheap? Yes. Effective? Sure by rationing and limits. Quality? Nope, off to Seattle!

 

[youknowme]

I don't mind taxpayer assistance for paying the health care costs of the most needy impoverished persons or elderly persons, but I don't expect the commoner folk to pay my health care costs or medical bills of my fellow privileged class; that'd likely happen if there were a single payer system.

I don't think that is really a big concern of the working class, I think they are more worried about not having insurance for themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmm...why not have a health care supermarket?

I can think of many reasons, but regardless, if the market hasn't created a "health care supermarket" on its own, you would need substantial market interference to create one. Why would that be the thing you artificially create through interventions and market distortions?