Page 79 of 159 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189129 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 1584

Thread: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

  1. #781
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Yes. It was a discussion of charity. So what?
    That's what you asked about,. Charity.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #782
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,805

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    And it is one of the economic areas where we disagree. Public pensions should be means-tested. Millionaires don't need Social Security when those on the low end are losing money due to chained CPI.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    He gets what he gets. That's the law of the land.

  3. #783
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That's what you asked about,. Charity.
    No, I asked you to be more specific. You did that. It doesn't seem to matter.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #784
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    And it is one of the economic areas where we disagree. Public pensions should be means-tested. Millionaires don't need Social Security when those on the low end are losing money due to chained CPI.
    The amount of money involved is miniscule, and highly qualified individuals should be compensated for their opportunity cost in performing public service.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #785
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,581

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I have. And I've even linked a version.


    http://www.pnhp.org/publications/payingnotgetting.pdf
    Your link contains much voodoo math like we are "spending" what we do not currently tax:

    health care–related tax subsidies and public employees’ health
    benefits
    This counts what is now spent by employers (including gov't employers) on medical care insurance premiums as "really" being gov't money that can be redirected with no economic impact. In other words, money spent on insurance premiums (non taxed) is counted twice, once as "taken from the gov't" and again when it is actually spent on health care. Normally when you talk of removing the employer's "burden" of providing medical care then you, in turn, give that money (already a direct labor cost) to the employee as a raise - increasing their taxable income but NOT by the full amount, as this article implies. So only the portion of that money that is due in taxation (about 25% at most) would be available for ADDITIONAL gov't use - not 100% of it as this moron math asserts. SS alone takes 12.4% of that "extra".

    The "new math" in this article also double counts Medicare, VA and Medicaid as if that is not simply part of total US medical care provider expenses. These people need exactly the same amount spent for their care under UHC as there is ZERO private insurance overhead/paperwork involved now. The only "savings" of UHC, without a reduction in care provided, is the small percentage now taken for "private" insurance company overhead (10%?) LESS whatever the paperwork costs for the gov't "single" payer are going to be. One must also consider what the immediate unemployment of all of these medical care insurance industry people will cost us - or will the gov't simply hire them all to staff UHC billing?

    The bottom line is that efficiently running the UHC may reduce the total cost from 18% of GDP to 15% of GDP at best. Using that amount, 15% of GDP, as what must be collected in taxation is current US UHC reality.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #786
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,805

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The amount of money involved is miniscule,
    This I don't know.
    and highly qualified individuals should be compensated for their opportunity cost in performing public service.
    How much more compensation would you like to give the public pension golden parachuters? Do you know how many are grand-fathered above the new caps on pension just here in IL?

  7. #787
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No name calling, just reality. You can give everyone in the country healthcare coverage and not assure they can find a doctor or get into a doctor's office. that is the problem with UHC, total coverage but inability to service the people thus more ER usage
    One pundit has suggested that we want medical care that is affordable, accessible, and of high quality; we can have two out of three. I think he may be right. For those of us who live along the northern border, the Canadian health system is a real boon because medical professionals who are good enough to compete come here to practice, and Canadians wealthy enough to pay for their care come down here to get it.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #788
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    This I don't know. How much more compensation would you like to give the public pension golden parachuters? Do you know how many are grand-fathered above the new caps on pension just here in IL?
    I'm not in a position to discuss individual cases or amounts.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #789
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It is nothing like you describe, although I understand the advocacy to turn it into this. It would be a revolutionary change to turn it into a communal service.

    Emergency response to accident/injury may seem communal akin to police and fire, but the hundreds of billions spent on end of life comfort care, symptom management, prescription drugs, etc.? No that is not communal.

    Health insurance is not even really insurance (ie it breaks all the rules that make insurance workable) and that is why it has failed.
    That is exactly right, although it wasn't always that way. We used to have policies that were good for catastrophic coverage, but Obama's Unavailable Care Act has outlawed them. If applied to car insurance, ObamaCare would require insurance to pay for gas, oil, tires, lube jobs, windshield wipers, and all sorts of other routine maintenance. Imagine what that premium would look like after you threw in the overhead for processing the claims and then doubled it for government oversight (including fancy conferences at luxury resorts, line dancing lessons, et al).
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  10. #790
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Your link contains much voodoo math like we are "spending" what we do not currently tax:



    This counts what is now spent by employers (including gov't employers) on medical care insurance premiums as "really" being gov't money that can be redirected with no economic impact. In other words, money spent on insurance premiums (non taxed) is counted twice, once as "taken from the gov't" and again when it is actually spent on health care. Normally when you talk of removing the employer's "burden" of providing medical care then you, in turn, give that money (already a direct labor cost) to the employee as a raise - increasing their taxable income but NOT by the full amount, as this article implies. So only the portion of that money that is due in taxation (about 25% at most) would be available for ADDITIONAL gov't use - not 100% of it as this moron math asserts. SS alone takes 12.4% of that "extra".

    The "new math" in this article also double counts Medicare, VA and Medicaid as if that is not simply part of total US medical care provider expenses. These people need exactly the same amount spent for their care under UHC as there is ZERO private insurance overhead/paperwork involved now. The only "savings" of UHC, without a reduction in care provided, is the small percentage now taken for "private" insurance company overhead (10%?) LESS whatever the paperwork costs for the gov't "single" payer are going to be. One must also consider what the immediate unemployment of all of these medical care insurance industry people will cost us - or will the gov't simply hire them all to staff UHC billing?

    The bottom line is that efficiently running the UHC may reduce the total cost from 18% of GDP to 15% of GDP at best. Using that amount, 15% of GDP, as what must be collected in taxation is current US UHC reality.

    10 % certainly helps. But care isn't hurt if needless test aren't done. Care is not hurt if minor things are handled by other care professionals.

    Add to this a 6-10% increase in taxation, and I do believe we can much better manage adequate care. Of course the wealthy can buy more, as always.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •