Thread for Leftist Hypocrisy and Other Immoral Behavior.

Originally posted by quanchi112
https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

There. Saving money works. You really bring nothing but a worthless opinion tbh. Another kevdude.

Without some sort of cost-sharing components to assist in funding facilities, we would lose a lot of hospitals and providers.

As noted earlier, the federal cost of enacting the M4A Act would be such that doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes going forward would be insufficient to fully finance the plan, even under the assumption that provider payment rates are reduced by over 40 percent for treatment of patients now covered by private insurance. Such an increase in the scope of federal government operations would precipitate a correspondingly large increase in federal taxation or debt and would be unprecedented if undertaken as an enduring federal commitment. There should be a robust public discussion of whether these outcomes are desirable and practicable before M4A’s enactment is seriously considered.

Cost Analysis of Koch Study

Originally posted by cdtm
So does transparency. Try getting the cost of a procedure from any hospital you work for. Employee's have written articles about a disturbing inability to get any solid information at all about costs.

We're talking about two different things. You're saying single payer can work, I'm saying, unless it makes someone even richer then the current system, it won't happen.

Politics assumes the people have an advocate, and that people are fundamentally good and honest, I say, they don't, and they're not.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Without some sort of cost-sharing components to assist in funding facilities, we would lose a lot of hospitals and providers.

Cost Analysis of Koch Study

Originally posted by quanchi112
None of that addresses the fact that single payer is cheaper according to the study. There is a reason most of the rest of the civilized world has universal healthcare.

"America is the greatest country and can accomplish anything!" -Some people

"Universal healthcare is impossible in America; it would never work!" -Those same people

And those People are RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
"America is the greatest country and can accomplish anything!" -Some people

"Universal healthcare is impossible in America; it would never work!" -Those same people

Originally posted by cdtm
Insurance companies aren't exactly raking it in, tbh. At least according to those that work for them.

I do not intend to be a dick but Health Insurance companies, especially in the US, make a SHIT load of money and profits are hitting record profits:

https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html

And we can, in part, thank the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for these amazing profits. 🙂

Originally posted by quanchi112
So you want to disregard their own study and instead focus entirely off of this? Is our system we currently have pleasing anyone? Do you hear gripes from those living in less wealthy countries about their own healthcare that is universal?

That quote is specifically from the study itself.

I can't speak to the happiness of everyone currently involved with health insurance in the USA but Gallup did a poll:

Americans are largely positive about the quality of the healthcare they receive: Three-quarters of employed Americans (75%) said the healthcare they received was "excellent" or "good" in Gallup's last survey on the issue, in November 2017. There is little difference between U.S. workers and the overall public, among whom 77% rate their personal healthcare as "excellent" or "good."

Gallup Study

I don't care about people living in other countries and what they think of their policies.

I simply addressed something in the study that would present significant problems for implementing a UHC in the USA and that is we have vast areas in the midwest that would lose hospitals and healthcare providers due to the loss of revenues.

This was also one of my complaints about the ACA, they should have gotten rid of state-driven health insurance and created one platform to distribute the cost of utilization with low population/high-cost areas and high population lower cost areas.

Which is also why I think the first best step is expand medicaid and then create a platform in which the govt can offer a public option that helps offset the cost with certain utilization fees.

Also in the language of the Bill Bernie present, he used funny language that would allow illegal immigrants access to coverage as well.

SEC. 102. Universal entitlement.

(a) In general.—Every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled to benefits for health care services under this Act. The Secretary shall promulgate a rule that provides criteria for determining residency for eligibility purposes under this Act.

.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not intend to be a dick but Health Insurance companies, especially in the US, make a SHIT load of money and profits are hitting record profits:

https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html

And we can, in part, thank the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for these amazing profits. 🙂

Originally posted by snowdragon
That quote is specifically from the study itself.

I can't speak to the happiness of everyone currently involved with health insurance in the USA but Gallup did a poll:

Gallup Study

I don't care about people living in other countries and what they think of their policies.

I simply addressed something in the study that would present significant problems for implementing a UHC in the USA and that is we have vast areas in the midwest that would lose hospitals and healthcare providers due to the loss of revenues.

This was also one of my complaints about the ACA, they should have gotten rid of state-driven health insurance and created one platform to distribute the cost of utilization with low population/high-cost areas and high population lower cost areas.

Which is also why I think the first best step is expand medicaid and then create a platform in which the govt can offer a public option that helps offset the cost with certain utilization fees.

Also in the language of the Bill Bernie present, he used funny language that would allow illegal immigrants access to coverage as well.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No one is saying thus is the cure all and there are not bumps to overcome but that it seems to work much better in other countries far less weather than us so logically it makes sense it it would work here.

I agree we need a better system, however population density is going to dictate how far someone has to drive to even get basic services based on the cut in pay to hospitals and providers.

The only places that would really do better are large urban areas. If you look at the population density of many of the areas that have a functional UHC they have a far higher population density then the USA or a much smaller population and land area to service. Just food for thought when something like this is brought up.

Population and Density

The first thing that should be changed is state regulated insurance, create a national standard and national pool (for the current for health insurance companies which would swallow each other up.)

Originally posted by snowdragon
I agree we need a better system, however population density is going to dictate how far someone has to drive to even get basic services based on the cut in pay to hospitals and providers.

The only places that would really do better are large urban areas. If you look at the population density of many of the areas that have a functional UHC they have a far higher population density then the USA or a much smaller population and land area to service. Just food for thought when something like this is brought up.

Population and Density

The first thing that should be changed is state regulated insurance, create a national standard and national pool (for the current for health insurance companies which would swallow each other up.)

Originally posted by quanchi112
It would be easier to worry about the problem of getting to a hospital that is further away than dealing with health insurance that does not cover enough of the costs so you cannot afford it.

Exactly which is why I said get rid of state-regulated insurance (this would cover Medicare and Medicaid, expand Medicaid and put it on a national level not run by states.

Plus everyone can get care in the ER and either laugh at the bill or choose to make 10$ monthly payments for life.

About 56% of insurance coverage is employer-sponsored and on average employers pay around 85% of the premiums for single coverage or around 75% for spouse and child coverage. The real burden is on the person getting individual coverage.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That quote is specifically from the study itself.

I can't speak to the happiness of everyone currently involved with health insurance in the USA but Gallup did a poll:

Gallup Study

I don't care about people living in other countries and what they think of their policies.

I simply addressed something in the study that would present significant problems for implementing a UHC in the USA and that is we have vast areas in the midwest that would lose hospitals and healthcare providers due to the loss of revenues.

This was also one of my complaints about the ACA, they should have gotten rid of state-driven health insurance and created one platform to distribute the cost of utilization with low population/high-cost areas and high population lower cost areas.

Which is also why I think the first best step is expand medicaid and then create a platform in which the govt can offer a public option that helps offset the cost with certain utilization fees.

Also in the language of the Bill Bernie present, he used funny language that would allow illegal immigrants access to coverage as well.

This is wonderful research.

So all we have to do is spend less than half as much as the French and we can pump those numbers up to 85%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/767000/satisfaction-quality-care-french/

To give some context, France is seen as the closest to the US in their healthcare system...except not most of our bad stuff. To run down the list:

1. Their performance metrics are almost all top or in the top 5, across the board. Overall rank is 20.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext

2. They spend far less than half on per capita healthcare spending, compared to the US.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

Their system is so similar to ours...but...they have a system that resembles a "medicare for all" solution. All other things are similar such as insurance companies, supplemental insurance, etc.

So when people poopoo Bernie's idea and like to overly inflate costs, we only have to look at France to see what a system would be like that is done correctly. Hell, if we just kept our current overly costly system in place but made our system similar to France, we'd have the best healthcare in the world. Talk about that being a huge boost to our economy...imagine how many people would be healthy, how much time saved because preventative care became the top priority, and cost controls were much better? I cannot imagine how amazing that system would be.

A lot of Trumpers here owe Sanders an apology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So when people poopoo Bernie's idea and like to overly inflate costs, we only have to look at France to see what a system would be like that is done correctly. Hell, if we just kept our current overly costly system in place but made our system similar to France, we'd have the best healthcare in the world. Talk about that being a huge boost to our economy...imagine how many people would be healthy, how much time saved because preventative care became the top priority, and cost controls were much better? I cannot imagine how amazing that system would be.

The French system is pretty solid:

The healthcare system in France is funded partially by obligatory social security contributions, which are usually deducted from your salary. In 2016 employees paid around 8 percent in total, while employers paid around 13 percent of salary towards health costs. The French healthcare system is also partially funded by the government and the patient, too, pays a small contribution to their healthcare costs.

When you see a doctor or have medical treatment a percentage of the cost – usually about 70 percent of doctors' fees and 80 percent of hospital costs – will be reimbursed for most people through the French healthcare system, so long as you are referred by your ‘attending doctor’ (see below). In the case of some major or long-term illnesses, 100 percent of the costs are covered.

The remainder of your charge must be paid for either by the patient or through any supplementary private health insurance. This is why many people take out top-up health insurance often organized by a 'mutual society' , or insurance provider. When you take out one of these policies, note that some may not cover certain sports and they may not offer immediate cover either. There are also other small charges that must be paid for by the patient, for example, a EUR 1 out-of-pocket charge per GP visit.

I could easily get behind this system, selling it to the higher-ups would be fun.

France has a the same prob as San Francisco... To many People Pooping on the streets.

So I do Not want to be in any way like either place. San France-Sicko!?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]France has a the same prob as San Francisco... To many People Pooping on the streets.

So I do Not want to be in any way like either place. San France-Sicko!? [/B]

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is wonderful research.

So all we have to do is spend less than half as much as the French and we can pump those numbers up to 85%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/767000/satisfaction-quality-care-french/

To give some context, France is seen as the closest to the US in their healthcare system...except not most of our bad stuff. To run down the list:

1. Their performance metrics are almost all top or in the top 5, across the board. Overall rank is 20.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30994-2/fulltext

2. They spend far less than half on per capita healthcare spending, compared to the US.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

Their system is so similar to ours...but...they have a system that resembles a "medicare for all" solution. All other things are similar such as insurance companies, supplemental insurance, etc.

So when people poopoo Bernie's idea and like to overly inflate costs, we only have to look at France to see what a system would be like that is done correctly. Hell, if we just kept our current overly costly system in place but made our system similar to France, we'd have the best healthcare in the world. Talk about that being a huge boost to our economy...imagine how many people would be healthy, how much time saved because preventative care became the top priority, and cost controls were much better? I cannot imagine how amazing that system would be.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The French system is pretty solid:

I could easily get behind this system, selling it to the higher-ups would be fun.

Wow, I did not know the cost-share was so large.

The cost-sharing thing was your idea to help offset the costs of a medicare-for-all solution, the last time we talked, and I thought it was a great idea.

But now that I've read this about France...

That seems like a brilliant idea. Why aren't we doing this? No wonder France has us beat in healthcare performance metrics at less than half the costs.

Also, it doesn't gut our health insurance industry going to this kind of system. Lots of people are worried about this because our health insurance companies are more than just health insurance (multinational conglomerates).

Hmmm...

If there are no drawbacks compared to the current system and only benefits, why aren't we doing this?

Also, your plan/idea is better than Bernie's. We should go with yours if we want this to be financially feasible on a fast time-scale.