Here's what your single payer healthcare funding would look like.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,173
Reaction score
9,231
Location
Yukon
family plans are different...those have always been really high, right? i don't have kids so i don't know what is reasonable to be honest....kids go to the doctor more than adults, i imagine, anyway...is that really an ACA or just a kids are expensive thing?
Kids are generally cheaper.

Someone has to pay for other peoples gov subsidized med insurance.
 

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
No but competition and transparency would make that hospital better or the overall landscape better. How do you think the ER would look if it was government ran? or even directly funded by the government?



If you understood the current landscape of most hospitals you'd already see that going "non-profit" wouldn't be the savior to your problems. Why are you ignoring this? Do you not understand that many large hospital systems are "non-profit?"

And you completely missed where I said the health care industry as a whole should be non-profit. Yes, I talked about hospitals being non-profit. And I admit, I did not realize so many were considered non-profit, but even those hospitals use for-profit entities that are separate yet use the hospital as a place of business. But, that doesn't count for all the other parts of the medical industry that are for-profit and free to charge whatever they want, most notably the pharmaceutical industry.

Not to mention you completely ignored my segment that trying to find cheaper insurance is not the answer as someone will still end up footing the bill. It doesn't matter if you are talking about socialized health care (single payer or universal health care) or multiple payer system that we have now, everyone ends up paying to provide health care to all. And the main driver behind the high cost of insurance is the cost of health care. All of it. The health care industry has 0 competition. They quite literally have a captive subscriber base that has no choice but to pay their prices, in some cases its either not pay their other bills to afford medication or die and at best is be in debt for the rest of their lives over a service they had no choice but accepting. So far the only thing I've heard is "better yourself and get a better job with better benefits" and "lets allow cheaper plans that don't pay squat and surprise you with high bills afterwards". No one, and I mean no one, so far has supported finding ways to lower the costs of the health care itself. I guess as long as some company gets to make a large profit you're ok with it. As much as I favor capitalism over other forms of economic policy I can't see that as anything but strong arming people to paying huge sums of money for their health.
 

SlugSlinger

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
7,970
Reaction score
7,843
Location
Owasso
family plans are different...those have always been really high, right? i don't have kids so i don't know what is reasonable to be honest....kids go to the doctor more than adults, i imagine, anyway...is that really an ACA or just a kids are expensive thing?
In general, kids are not more expensive to insure. They probably do go to the Dr. more, however it’s for a runny nose or fever or some other easily treated medical issue. The cost the are expensive are related to adults and generally aged adults.
Treating heart disease, cancer and other chronic issues that land a patient in the hospital are ultimately the drivers for the high insurance premiums.
The company I work for is self insured. They provide some information on insurance premium increase and the drivers listed above kill the premiums.
A kid visiting the doctor probably costs less than $300, at the most. An adult admitted to the hospital for a heart attack could cost what? $500,000 or more? You tell me which age group drives insurance premiums. It’s not the number of visits, it’s the type of visit and course of treatment.

The dreams of the liberals who want single payer and even the masterminds behind ubomacre, had in mind this: Enroll everyone and make the young and healthy members pay for the chronically I’ll. The problem is, the young and healthy didn’t want to pay or sign up for a premium to cover the chronically ill.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,963
Reaction score
46,101
Location
Tulsa
And you completely missed where I said the health care industry as a whole should be non-profit. Yes, I talked about hospitals being non-profit. And I admit, I did not realize so many were considered non-profit, but even those hospitals use for-profit entities that are separate yet use the hospital as a place of business. But, that doesn't count for all the other parts of the medical industry that are for-profit and free to charge whatever they want, most notably the pharmaceutical industry.

And you are completely missing the bigger picture and obviously don't understand what "non-profit" really means. Hint: You can have higher profits from a non-profit model than a traditionally taxed business. You see "non-profit" only applies to their tax structure, or lack of paying taxes, and to them providing a community benefit in return, it will not change what they charge for service or their pricing. Do I need to go more in depth here? I certainly can. Because you seem to believe they somehow are limiting profits and again..... that's not how that works. Go look at several large "non-profit" organizations in depth and you'll see what I'm talking about.


Not to mention you completely ignored my segment that trying to find cheaper insurance is not the answer as someone will still end up footing the bill. It doesn't matter if you are talking about socialized health care (single payer or universal health care) or multiple payer system that we have now, everyone ends up paying to provide health care to all. And the main driver behind the high cost of insurance is the cost of health care. All of it. The health care industry has 0 competition.

Not sure what you're talking about here, I've made several statements outside of insurance. However, hospitals treat insurance companies like a bag of money, and then insurance companies pass that on to us. You then have the government telling insurance companies what they have to cover, thus giving them a free pass on premiums.


They quite literally have a captive subscriber base that has no choice but to pay their prices, in some cases its either not pay their other bills to afford medication or die and at best is be in debt for the rest of their lives over a service they had no choice but accepting. So far the only thing I've heard is "better yourself and get a better job with better benefits" and "lets allow cheaper plans that don't pay squat and surprise you with high bills afterwards". No one, and I mean no one, so far has supported finding ways to lower the costs of the health care itself. I guess as long as some company gets to make a large profit you're ok with it. As much as I favor capitalism over other forms of economic policy I can't see that as anything but strong arming people to paying huge sums of money for their health.

Several people have supported ways, and they've been mentioned in this thread, get the government out of it and let the free market work. If someone does make a profit yes I'm absolutely fine with it. Let's stop thinking with emotion here and understand logic. People are afforded compensation for their work, especially healthcare workers. YOU don't get to decide how much that is and neither should the government.

It's funny you mention strong arming people. What did the Biden literally just try to do with Covid and the vaccines? Only a matter of time before they start dictating your health and rationing care to "those who need it more." I notice not one of y'all argue that point, because you can't.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,963
Reaction score
46,101
Location
Tulsa
Increased medicaid enrollment is a good thing, right?

I mean, for those on it, but for those paying for it?

I mean, more coverage for people without it....

More hands out there for sure....

Higher healthcare costs? i think costs were trending upward for decades before ACA....

A more detailed.... and REFERENCED spoiler... :D

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200406.93812/full/
yes, i'd say it improved it for those who did not have coverage; those who now receive medicaid,

But you DO hopefully understand that's not a majority? Considering us tax paying folks and all...

and those who work at smaller companies who dont provide benefits. when i worked for a small plumbing company, i had no benefits at all but the ACA gave me nearly-free coverage through the marketplace... otherwise what you say is true.

The flip side to that is it blew up small insurance pools for those small businesses that actually provided healthcare. Think there were businesses previously that didn't offer it? Now that number has increased substantially.

Part of the benefit of the pre-ACA model was that as a younger, healthier person, it was much, much cheaper. Now that the insurance companies can't deny the unhealthy and chronically ill coverage, the costs have gone up significantly for us healthier folks. So it's really a matter of whether or not you agree with the principle that the young and healthy producers in society should subsidize those who cannot afford it or who have chronic illnesses via higher premiums.....

That's a cute way of robbing the rich and middle class and giving it to the poor. But let's say it's that simple. Why am I punished for living a healthier lifestyle? What are the top three causes of death in the United States YOY? Heart disease, Cancer, and chronic lung disease.... basically smoking. Why do I have to pay for their choices?

I'll concede that the government works for those that are on handouts. So they probably think (per design) that the ACA is the greatest thing ever. However, those that work, raise a family, and succeed, pay the price.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,963
Reaction score
46,101
Location
Tulsa
2k ? No way….I don’t think there is a plan on the ACA website that cost 2k a month…what was it before? Crazy

You REALLY need to expose yourself to some reality of what people are paying right now. Hint: Start pricing out plans when you are in your 60s..... also look at the deductible structure. While you're at it, price in higher incomes.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,963
Reaction score
46,101
Location
Tulsa
family plans are different...those have always been really high, right? i don't have kids so i don't know what is reasonable to be honest....kids go to the doctor more than adults, i imagine, anyway...is that really an ACA or just a kids are expensive thing?

Not trying to be harsh but should you be telling everyone else how great a system is if you're ignorant to the costs of providing healthcare for a family?
 

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
And you are completely missing the bigger picture and obviously don't understand what "non-profit" really means. Hint: You can have higher profits from a non-profit model than a traditionally taxed business. You see "non-profit" only applies to their tax structure, or lack of paying taxes, and to them providing a community benefit in return, it will not change what they charge for service or their pricing. Do I need to go more in depth here? I certainly can. Because you seem to believe they somehow are limiting profits and again..... that's not how that works. Go look at several large "non-profit" organizations in depth and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The difference is that they are not designed to make money for the owner's or shareholders, so in other words are not profit driven but rather there to provide a service. Unlike right now where almost all pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies so are driven to maximize profits. That's not to mention the paten trolls. How many high profile stories in the last 10 years have you read where a patent troll snapped up a medical patent then skyrocketed the price of that drug to an astronomical amount? That is what I'm trying to prevent for all of the medical industry.



Not sure what you're talking about here, I've made several statements outside of insurance. However, hospitals treat insurance companies like a bag of money, and then insurance companies pass that on to us. You then have the government telling insurance companies what they have to cover, thus giving them a free pass on premiums.

That is the damn problem and the point you are missing! All the supposed "fixes" are focusing on cheaper insurance rates INSTEAD of focusing on the real problem that the medical industry is pretty much more monopoly than free market, therefor they are given a free pass to charge anything they want and pass it on to insurance, who then passes it on to us, usually in a distributed cost, because once again medical insurance companies are all for the mighty profit margin. In the end its us consumers who get screwed. We don't have a choice here. Its like deciding if you want cable tv or not.


Several people have supported ways, and they've been mentioned in this thread, get the government out of it and let the free market work. If someone does make a profit yes I'm absolutely fine with it. Let's stop thinking with emotion here and understand logic. People are afforded compensation for their work, especially healthcare workers. YOU don't get to decide how much that is and neither should the government.

It's funny you mention strong arming people. What did the Biden literally just try to do with Covid and the vaccines? Only a matter of time before they start dictating your health and rationing care to "those who need it more." I notice not one of y'all argue that point, because you can't.

There is no free market. Again, that is the biggest problem. Just as one example (that I have already given and it was ignored completely) a set of 2 epipens was $92 before the 2007 acquisition of the patent. Fifteen years later it now costs $700 for a set. That is a 660% increase in price. The new generic version of it? That runs about $340, still a 270% increase. In a free market that would be impossible to achieve as consumers would switch to a lower price alternative or just not purchase it. Then the law of supply and demand would dictate that demand would go down, supply would stay constant so price would go down to compensate. You do NOT have that in the medical industry. The demand will be there regardless of the price as people NEED this product. So there is no free market with the medical industry, so it should not be treated us such. That is only logical.

As far your example of strong arming, you just proved my point. If I get in a wreck and go to the hospital I have no choice but to accept the services, regardless of the price. I don't get to pick who takes me to the hospital, I am not given a list of hospitals, their rates OR if I want those services unless my injuries are slight enough that I can refuse treatment. And, I can not negotiate the price of those services or look at lower priced alternatives. This type of strong arming is rife in the medical industry and not just limited to accidents.

With no regulation only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare. Am I for complete government control? No. But, in the absence of a free market, there should be regulations on pricing to make a necessity affordable.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom