• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart workers demand better wages

j-mac said:
Bull, you even said you don't know....So why don't you stop putting forth your opinion as fact. It isn't.
Click to expand...

J, are those the only words I Said? And the fact is it would be less. Single payer systems are not new.
 
j-mac said:
So then it should be easy....Show me the numbers, or stop lying.
Click to expand...

You have an odd definition if the word lying. Do you really believe you'll pay a couple hundred dollars a month extra in taxes? Really?

Of course you also have to add the employer contribution. Now do you really belief that?
 
Boo Radley said:
You have an odd definition if the word lying. Do you really believe you'll pay a couple hundred dollars a month extra in taxes? Really?

Of course you also have to add the employer contribution. Now do you really belief that?
Click to expand...


$50 per week? sure....But that is beside the point....Show me the numbers to back up your claim.
 
j-mac said:
$50 per week? sure....But that is beside the point....Show me the numbers to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

Mostly it's sound logic. But when I get on the computer I'll link ya something. I told we could play dueling links.
 
j-mac said:
Good grief Joe, why is it that having you answer a question with something other than a one line non answer is like trying to get a kid eat their veggies?

Tell me why.....
Click to expand...

Actually, my daughter LOVES her veggies. I suppose I should consider myself lucky? Probably the only 3 1/2 year old that LIKES brussel sprouts...weird, right?
 
Boo Radley said:
They have been successful largely with people who can pay. And that is doctor visits, which would not include others healthcare related services. Right now I pay $206 a month family. When it was a family of four, sounds like you'd have me paying that much just for office visits.

Now, look at pharmaceuticals. We here drug companies can't handle paying what Canada pays for drugs. What do you think will happen absent insurance? Will that $200 a month med now be $50 a month? $25? $10?

Again, medicine is not going to significantly cheaper. You'll just have less access.
Click to expand...

So the reverse of what you are proposing, is that making it more expensive will increase access? Right.....

Now, on that $206 what are your copays like for doctor visits? The doctors I'm referring to are giving unlimited visits with no copays, no charges on tests/etc., and ACTUAL holistic care with at least 30 minutes of face to face time. 5-10 minute checkups is simply not effective medicine. Yes, they see less patents, simply because they were seeing the patents for a greater amount of time each. But before you say that is "restricting access," I'm confident more doctors would become primary care practitioners if they didn't have to deal with the enormous paperwork/financial burden of insurance companies+ malpractice insurance+ being overworked by huge numbers of patents.

They are willing to charge that rate, because they can still make $200k after expenses just by seeing 800 patents, and don't have to hire extra people to deal with insurance paperwork/hassles.




If you want more access to healthcare, you need more doctors. If you want more doctors, then the hammer needs to stop being dropped on those doctors.
 
ReformCollege said:
So the reverse of what you are proposing, is that making it more expensive will increase access? Right.....

Now, on that $206 what are your copays like for doctor visits? The doctors I'm referring to are giving unlimited visits with no copays, no charges on tests/etc., and ACTUAL holistic care with at least 30 minutes of face to face time. 5-10 minute checkups is simply not effective medicine. Yes, they see less patents, simply because they were seeing the patents for a greater amount of time each. But before you say that is "restricting access," I'm confident more doctors would become primary care practitioners if they didn't have to deal with the enormous paperwork/financial burden of insurance companies+ malpractice insurance+ being overworked by huge numbers of patents.

They are willing to charge that rate, because they can still make $200k after expenses just by seeing 800 patents, and don't have to hire extra people to deal with insurance paperwork/hassles.




If you want more access to healthcare, you need more doctors. If you want more doctors, then the hammer needs to stop being dropped on those doctors.
Click to expand...

Even with the ten dollar copayment, still less expensive.

And you can find doctors who send time now. How much time that is effective varies, so the time spent is not an issue at this moment, and what I'm speaking of in terms of access. Cost is what will limit.

And no one is dropping any hammer on doctors. What limits doctors is doctors, through the AMA, who work hard to limit he number of doctors.
 
Boo Radley said:
Even with the ten dollar copayment, still less expensive.

And you can find doctors who send time now. How much time that is effective varies, so the time spent is not an issue at this moment, and what I'm speaking of in terms of access. Cost is what will limit.

And no one is dropping any hammer on doctors. What limits doctors is doctors, through the AMA, who work hard to limit he number of doctors.
Click to expand...

So.... I'm still not getting the part where as health care becomes more expensive, it also becomes more accessable?


That is a problem, yes. But I certainly see the point where we do not want to have a drop off in the quality of doctors by lowering the standards.

My entire point was, insurance is extremely wasteful.
 
ReformCollege said:
So.... I'm still not getting the part where as health care becomes more expensive, it also becomes more accessable?


That is a problem, yes. But I certainly see the point where we do not want to have a drop off in the quality of doctors by lowering the standards.

My entire point was, insurance is extremely wasteful.
Click to expand...

I admit you seem to be moving around in a way that is hard for me to follow. So, lets back up. Technology and medical advancement moved medical care from the home to hospitals and other treatment areas. This in tandem with the need to make sure doctors were capable and qualified, and the snake oil salesmen of the past, led to greater costs. Medicine became unaffordable for many. Insurance grew out of that environment. Everything starts for a reason.

Now, third party payers keep what s unaffordable for a majority doable for most. We mistakenly attached it to employment instead of UHC, but it as allowed more access than we would have otherwise.

Now, if we had UHC, not only would we pay less, but access would be much better than today.

Now, you suggested removing third party payers and suggest it would be cheaper. But you largely only addressed doctor visits which would be more expensive for the patient than insurance would be (getting less for the money as you would still need insurance for everything else).

So I haven't followed you since you threw out HMOs with no connection I can see to anything said. Hopefully this ears things up.
 
Boo Radley said:
I admit you seem to be moving around in a way that is hard for me to follow. So, lets back up. Technology and medical advancement moved medical care from the home to hospitals and other treatment areas. This in tandem with the need to make sure doctors were capable and qualified, and the snake oil salesmen of the past, led to greater costs. Medicine became unaffordable for many. Insurance grew out of that environment. Everything starts for a reason.

Now, third party payers keep what s unaffordable for a majority doable for most. We mistakenly attached it to employment instead of UHC, but it as allowed more access than we would have otherwise.

Now, if we had UHC, not only would we pay less, but access would be much better than today.

Now, you suggested removing third party payers and suggest it would be cheaper. But you largely only addressed doctor visits which would be more expensive for the patient than insurance would be (getting less for the money as you would still need insurance for everything else).

So I haven't followed you since you threw out HMOs with no connection I can see to anything said. Hopefully this ears things up.
Click to expand...


A couple of things here...

Technology did increase cost in medical services that is true, but one of the reasons that this drove cost is that more and more people were and are relying on Hospital emergency rooms to get well care treatment, then not paying for the services rendered, pushing cost for the rest of us.

When our kids were younger, my wife had a job that offered kasier HMO as an insurance option, which we were in. It was great! One facility, doc visit, testing, and prescriptions all within one stop, including x-ray if needed. But as great as that model was, it was expensive. So much so that the employer dropped it as a provider later on, luckly after she left....But that is my question, if you are advocating the HMO model, which I agree was damned good at taking care of our needs at the time, how do you address the prohibitive cost of that service?
 
Boo Radley said:
I admit you seem to be moving around in a way that is hard for me to follow. So, lets back up. Technology and medical advancement moved medical care from the home to hospitals and other treatment areas. This in tandem with the need to make sure doctors were capable and qualified, and the snake oil salesmen of the past, led to greater costs. Medicine became unaffordable for many. Insurance grew out of that environment. Everything starts for a reason.

Now, third party payers keep what s unaffordable for a majority doable for most. We mistakenly attached it to employment instead of UHC, but it as allowed more access than we would have otherwise.

Now, if we had UHC, not only would we pay less, but access would be much better than today.

Now, you suggested removing third party payers and suggest it would be cheaper. But you largely only addressed doctor visits which would be more expensive for the patient than insurance would be (getting less for the money as you would still need insurance for everything else).

So I haven't followed you since you threw out HMOs with no connection I can see to anything said. Hopefully this ears things up.
Click to expand...

It does tend to be cheaper though.
Just as an example, that happened to me recently.
I got a bill from my son's pediatrician, it was for $49.63, I paid it through my HSA "send a check" feature.
The Dr.'s office lost the check and never deposited it.

So I called them up to see when they would cash it, they said they never got it.
I told them I'd like to pay it in full now, I got a 40% discount off the bill, for paying in full, right then.
Hospitals do this very same thing.

Basically, what these offices bill for, is not what they will actually take for cost of service + profit.
It's a sort of shell game, medical providers play.
 
j-mac said:
A couple of things here...

Technology did increase cost in medical services that is true, but one of the reasons that this drove cost is that more and more people were and are relying on Hospital emergency rooms to get well care treatment, then not paying for the services rendered, pushing cost for the rest of us.

When our kids were younger, my wife had a job that offered kasier HMO as an insurance option, which we were in. It was great! One facility, doc visit, testing, and prescriptions all within one stop, including x-ray if needed. But as great as that model was, it was expensive. So much so that the employer dropped it as a provider later on, luckly after she left....But that is my question, if you are advocating the HMO model, which I agree was damned good at taking care of our needs at the time, how do you address the prohibitive cost of that service?
Click to expand...

Emergency rooms are a more modern development. I'm going back a lot further than that.

Insured people using the er, however, is less a problem than the uninsured. At least the insured have a method of paying. The uninsured do exactly as you claim. Another reason for UHC.

Now I'm sure I missed a talking point memo some where that has everyone throwing up HMOs instead of what is being said. No where have I mention using HMOs.

Instead, I suggest a two tiered single payer system which provides adequate care for all (not anything you want, but no more restricting than insurance now). However, there is the freedom for all to buy more (either more insurance or more care). Remove insurance from employment. And deal with healthcare like you do other public services, like fire departments.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It does tend to be cheaper though.
Just as an example, that happened to me recently.
I got a bill from my son's pediatrician, it was for $49.63, I paid it through my HSA "send a check" feature.
The Dr.'s office lost the check and never deposited it.

So I called them up to see when they would cash it, they said they never got it.
I told them I'd like to pay it in full now, I got a 40% discount off the bill, for paying in full, right then.
Hospitals do this very same thing.

Basically, what these offices bill for, is not what they will actually take for cost of service + profit.
It's a sort of shell game, medical providers play.
Click to expand...

Small change. And those things tend to go away. Remember when you could get a discount on gas for cash? However, you should know that there is a number where that cost would be difficult. There was a time, with a family, working for low wages, that I would have had difficulty paying that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Small change. And those things tend to go away. Remember when you could get a discount on gas for cash? However, you should know that there is a number where that cost would be difficult. There was a time, with a family, working for low wages, that I would have had difficulty paying that.
Click to expand...

This is standard protocol for medical providers, as I've learned.
Because of insurance, they tend to skew their prices up, to get as much as they can.
My wife, who has a separate insurance plan, received a bill detail for approximately $20k, insurance negotiated price was only 10% of that.
You don't really think they took a loss of $18k, do you?

Not even remotely similar to the cash price for gas, which I've never seen before.
Gas here, as long as I can remember, has cost the same regardless of cash or credit.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
This is standard protocol for medical providers, as I've learned.
Because of insurance, they tend to skew their prices up, to get as much as they can.
My wife, who has a separate insurance plan, received a bill detail for approximately $20k, insurance negotiated price was only 10% of that.
You don't really think they took a loss of $18k, do you?

Not even remotely similar to the cash price for gas, which I've never seen before.
Gas here, as long as I can remember, has cost the same regardless of cash or credit.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to pretend insurance is perfect, but that discount would likely go away without it. Doctors know they would have fewer customers without insurance. They also have a number who don't pay, you I've will verify that as well.

Yes, there was a time when you could in and offer cash for a discount on gas. But, it is the reason for the discount that changes. Without the reason, no discount.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not going to pretend insurance is perfect, but that discount would likely go away without it. Doctors know they would have fewer customers without insurance. They also have a number who don't pay, you I've will verify that as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that we should do away with insurance.
HSA's offer an alternative, cost reducing option for people who want insurance, just not to much insurance.

I've experienced first hand, that having less insurance coverage, has saved me money.

Yes, there are some who don't pay, but the majority do pay, through insurance.
Hospitals overcharge on purpose, most don't know that you can get out with a much smaller bill.
If pricing were up front, the shenanigans would be less prevalent.


Boo Radley said:
Yes, there was a time when you could in and offer cash for a discount on gas. But, it is the reason for the discount that changes. Without the reason, no discount.
Click to expand...

Yes but you didn't get a 40% or 90% cash discount.
The discount that did exist was for credit card transaction fees, which resulted in around a 3-5% discount.
 
Boo Radley said:
Emergency rooms are a more modern development. I'm going back a lot further than that.

Insured people using the er, however, is less a problem than the uninsured. At least the insured have a method of paying. The uninsured do exactly as you claim. Another reason for UHC.

Now I'm sure I missed a talking point memo some where that has everyone throwing up HMOs instead of what is being said. No where have I mention using HMOs.

Instead, I suggest a two tiered single payer system which provides adequate care for all (not anything you want, but no more restricting than insurance now). However, there is the freedom for all to buy more (either more insurance or more care). Remove insurance from employment. And deal with healthcare like you do other public services, like fire departments.
Click to expand...


Do you foresee a tax increase to cover that cost then, and what would it be in terms of percentage?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not arguing that we should do away with insurance.
HSA's offer an alternative, cost reducing option for people who want insurance, just not to much insurance.

I've experienced first hand, that having less insurance coverage, has saved me money.

Yes, there are some who don't pay, but the majority do pay, through insurance.
Hospitals overcharge on purpose, most don't know that you can get out with a much smaller bill.

If pricing were up front, the shenanigans would be less prevalent.




Yes but you didn't get a 40% or 90% cash discount.
The discount that did exist was for credit card transaction fees, which resulted in around a 3-5% discount.
Click to expand...

HSA is only helpful in some cases, and not a real solution. It is virtual no real help for me. Our med costs are too large. Insurance is much better. But it does nothing t all for the major problems we face with health.
 
j-mac said:
Do you foresee a tax increase to cover that cost then, and what would it be in terms of percentage?
Click to expand...

We've been through this. Sure there would be an increase, but likely much less than what individuals and employers pay now. However, tomorrow when I'm at a computer I'll look that up for you. I'm not sure why your so attached to av system that costs more and has less access.
 
Boo Radley said:
I admit you seem to be moving around in a way that is hard for me to follow. So, lets back up. Technology and medical advancement moved medical care from the home to hospitals and other treatment areas. This in tandem with the need to make sure doctors were capable and qualified, and the snake oil salesmen of the past, led to greater costs. Medicine became unaffordable for many. Insurance grew out of that environment. Everything starts for a reason.

Now, third party payers keep what s unaffordable for a majority doable for most. We mistakenly attached it to employment instead of UHC, but it as allowed more access than we would have otherwise.

Now, if we had UHC, not only would we pay less, but access would be much better than today.

Now, you suggested removing third party payers and suggest it would be cheaper. But you largely only addressed doctor visits which would be more expensive for the patient than insurance would be (getting less for the money as you would still need insurance for everything else).

So I haven't followed you since you threw out HMOs with no connection I can see to anything said. Hopefully this ears things up.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Third parties, by definition, subtract wealth from the healthcare system. Whatever services are provided by the healthcare industry, doctors could provide them at a cheaper cost without the cost of regulation, extra staff for paperwork, overhead profits, etc. etc.

Its easy to mix up what it currently costs to be uninsured, with what it would cost if there were no insurance. Being uninsured now... doctors still have to pay their extra paperwork staff the same amount, regardless of whether or not YOU specifically have health insurance. Plus... current prices are based in part on the % of premiums doctors recieve from the health insurance company for certain services... so if you are uninsured, you are pretty much picking up the bill instead of insurance companies for that enormous amount of money that would've been deducted from premiums. Insurance companies + doctors alike are benefited by driving premiums up, creating an external upward pricing pressure. However, without insurance, that pricing model would disappear, and the rate you would pay would be more of a market set rate. Market set rates would not have that upward pricing pressure, and more likely would have a slight down pricing pressure.

UHC would be an improvement, but I will always contend that if we can use a market constructed way of reducing prices + increasing the # amount of human resources (doctors, nurses etc.), then that should be step number one. Then... if every single one of the free market solutions (notice I say free market, I don't mean "let the free market work itself out," but rather I think we should use our understanding of the free market to construct solutions) don't work out, then and only then, would I say okay lets move to a UHC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom