• 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!

Study finds that single-payer saves money

Yawn.

Remember The 47 Percent Who Pay No Income Taxes? They Are Not Who You Think.



Statistically the speaking, Trumpers are less likely to pay their taxes while receiving government hand-outs. Way to sabotage your own point. Wheeee!

And also:



Only 11 percent of those age 25-55 do not pay federal income tax

A little lesson for ya

This group does more than not pay a fed income tax. They receive someones else's redistributed wealth in the EITC(Billions)

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit: History, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness | Economic Policy Institute



Yep

Stay awile
 
We don’t need single payer to reap the benefits that this study found.

The two largest and almost complete net result of the savings was from administrative cost reduction (billing) and drug cost reduction.

Both of those can happen under the system we have now but it requires the removal of government interference from the health care system, ie the ACA.

Basic regulation should be in place that the ACA provides like
Pre existing condition protection
No lifetime maximum
Etc

Get the quota system out of medicine, docs having to “see” X number of patients. Let folks buy insurance across state lines, IOW increase competition.

I worked for a small company that offered BCBS and it was high deductible plan. The company paid my deductible into my HSA. That has been by far the best health insurance plan I have ever had.

The government should be there to encourage good behavior not force compliance.

Don’t tax the bad, incentive the good. Tax benefits for HSA contribution by both the employer and employee. Allow as much as one wants to save into HSA. There are all kinds of ideas that do t burden the many taxpayers to support the few AND reduce costs through completion and efficiency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You are talking about total costs. MFA would bankrupt the government because even though the overall costs would be less, the government would basically be paying 100% of the costs while right now individuals pay a good share of the cost. And, with the government in control, the horrors of a single payer system would soon take root.


I've been on both sides, the private and the public, and I can assure you there are more horrors on the private side than on the public side.


Once upon a time, ever heard of the "claims department"? Wanna know what their mission was?


Answer: To deny claims as much as possible.

YouTube

YouTube

This is what it was like before the ACA. And repubs want to kill it.

See, the whole principle of health insurance, is that the more they can get away with denying claims, the more money they make.

Does that sound like a good model that serves the public interest? Medicare has NO such incentive. Why? Because IT IS NOT FOR PROFIT, THAT'S WHY.

I'm on medicare, and i've had NO PROBLEMS with it, no waiting, no denials, no nothing, It works beautifully.

Those on the right need to STFU.


Moreover, M4A will not prevent anyone for paying for medical care directly, should they so choose.


Additionally, what you are failing to grasp regarding costs, is that health care dollars are already being spent, but M4A, all it does is redirect those dollars being channeled to insurers away from them and into a more efficient system. It's more efficient because the insurance cost layer is removed. This is precisely why in 50 developed nations that have some form of UHC, their costs per capita is roughly half of what it is in the USA.
 
Last edited:
This group does more than not pay a fed income tax. They receive someones else's redistributed wealth in the EITC(Billions)

Oh no billions! I think you should address the fact that the VAST majority of people who don’t pay income tax are statistically Trump supporters who receive he most benefit from socialized medicine. Would you advocate for taking Medicare away from Trumpers? I’m not actually sure what you’re trying to say, much less advocate for.
 
Derp. Few over 75 pay taxes, and they are overwhelmingly Trump supporters. Not exactly the unemployed rural rubes you pretend.

Question of the Day: Why are leftwingers so dishonest in everything they do and say?

This from a guy who calls Obamacare “Chimpycare”.
 
the other countries using similar systems aren't working out as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is claiming. Gaps in coverage and long waiting lines exist. The promise of the democrat Leftist is that in America we will do it better and fix all the mistakes and problems that occur elsewhere. Yeah, government runs things so well.

No, the Rest of the World Doesn't Use "Single Payer" - Foundation for Economic Education



I've had the opportunity to put this question to some 100 persons from Canada, France, Finland, Norway, Holland, Sweden, etc


"Would you trade your country's health care system for that of America's? "


Thus far, 99 of those said "no". not just "no", but "HELL NO".

The Naval Hospital, a government run institution, is par none. If there is proof that government can run a hospital, and do it well, there it is.

See, it's not gov versus private, it's good admin versus bad admin.


Moreover, M4A is NOT a "gov run hospital". It's a consortium of private clinics who opt in for medicare paying the bill.

See, these clinics still compete in a market place for business. Viola, the best of both worlds, the perfect balance of socialism/capitalism.

I ask: Where does the pendulum rest?


Answer: It rests only upon arrival at dead center.


Moreover, using other countries as examples is not that good, considering that most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole.
 
I've had the opportunity to put this question to some 100 persons from Canada, France, Finland, Norway, Holland, Sweden, etc


"Would you trade your country's health care system for that of America's? "


Thus far, 99 of those said "no". not just "no", but "HELL NO".

The Naval Hospital, a government run institution, is par none. If there is proof that government can run a hospital, and do it well, there it is.

See, it's not gov versus private, it's good admin versus bad admin.


Moreover, M4A is NOT a "gov run hospital". It's a consortium of private clinics who opt in for medicare paying the bill.

See, these clinics still compete in a market place for business. Viola, the best of both worlds, the perfect balance of socialism/capitalism.

I ask: Where does the pendulum rest?


Answer: It rests only upon arrival at dead center.


Moreover, using other countries as examples is not that good, considering that most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole.



"most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole"

That's because to get the same or better health outcomes at nearly half the cost, those countries not only pay much less for admin and drugs, they also pay less in doctors and mgr salaries. BTW, the claim that the UHC countries wait-time is much longer than in the US is a farce and has never been proven.
 
In universal health care, all have access to health care but not all have access to quality health care or health care when they want or need it.
That's how universal health care is cheaper. People are regularly denied health care.

That's kind of like how our **** works, but we pay more. Many folk can't afford the higher quality care and just die after some time. Medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. That seems a bit messed up.
 
that's kind of like how our **** works, but we pay more. Many folk can't afford the higher quality care and just die after some time. Medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america. That seems a bit messed up.
nm...
 
Last edited:
I also get a little nervous when "projected costs" are used for argument. Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its "projected costs" by gazillions?
Nonsense. Projections and trends aren't reality.

Yes, reality has turned out to be much better than the projections used to sell the ACA ten years ago. And that's because health care cost growth fell to historic lows after the ACA passed, which no one at the time was predicting.

As a result, spending right now is half a trillion dollars below where they told us it would be at this point. Cumulative health savings relative to baseline over the 2010-19 period has been about $2.7 trillion. The cost of the ACA itself has been closer to about half of what it was promised to be, whereas the Medicare savings have been closer to double (~$500 billion promised vs ~$900 billion achieved). Health spending as a percentage of GDP right now is 3.2 percentage points below what they told us it would be by this year.

So what policy outperformed its projected costs? The ACA. By an insane amount. And the entire health sector, not to mention every man, women, and child in the country, is better off for it.
 
That's kind of like how our **** works, but we pay more. Many folk can't afford the higher quality care and just die after some time. Medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. That seems a bit messed up.
If you're saying universal healthcare is the same as traditional American healthcare because people are denied healthcare in both cases, I'd agree with you. The big difference being the cost. Universal healthcare is far more expensive to the average individual.
 
Last edited:
Yes, reality has turned out to be much better than the projections used to sell the ACA ten years ago. And that's because health care cost growth fell to historic lows after the ACA passed, which no one at the time was predicting.
It has? In what universe?
Greenbeard said:
As a result, spending right now is half a trillion dollars below where they told us it would be at this point. Cumulative health savings relative to baseline over the 2010-19 period has been about $2.7 trillion. The cost of the ACA itself has been closer to about half of what it was promised to be, whereas the Medicare savings have been closer to double (~$500 billion promised vs ~$900 billion achieved). Health spending as a percentage of GDP right now is 3.2 percentage points below what they told us it would be by this year.
LOL, there you go with "projections and trends" again.
Greenbeard said:
So what policy outperformed its projected costs? The ACA. By an insane amount. And the entire health sector, not to mention every man, women, and child in the country, is better off for it.
LOL, maybe in the la-la land of spreadsheets and projections, but the fact is consumers are paying much higher premiums and outrageous deductibles while the government subsidizes insurance companies (many of which have dropped out of the market).
 
It has? In what universe?

This one. Health care spending growth, health care price inflation, ESI premiums have all flirted with historic lows in the ACA era. That's why the nation is spending far less on health care right now than anyone thought we would be.

LOL, there you go with "projections and trends" again.

That's literally how you started this exchange. "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" The answer is the ACA. By a lot. It came in under its projected costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's just the taxpayer share of national health costs. National health care costs themselves came in trillions under projected costs over the past decade.

LOL, maybe in the la-la land of spreadsheets and projections

Yes, numbers, the things we're talking about. I'm sure you feel like health cost savings in the ACA era didn't vastly exceed expectations, but the numbers are unequivocal that they did. Numbers do in fact trump rightwing feelings.
 
This one. Health care spending growth, health care price inflation, ESI premiums have all flirted with historic lows in the ACA era. That's why the nation is spending far less on health care right now than anyone thought we would be.
LOL, again with the "projections and trends" mantra. Those aren't real numbers or data, they're suppositions and guesses.


Greenbeard said:
That's literally how you started this exchange. "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" The answer is the ACA. By a lot. It came in under its projected costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's just the taxpayer share of national health costs. National health care costs themselves came in trillions under projected costs over the past decade.
LOL "projected costs" mean squat. Actual costs DO.


Greenbeard said:
Yes, numbers, the things we're talking about. I'm sure you feel like health cost savings in the ACA era didn't vastly exceed expectations, but the numbers are unequivocal that they did. Numbers do in fact trump rightwing feelings.
Got nothing to do with Trump, I raised these issues since he was a Democrat. What I feel is continually writing bigger and bigger checks for premiums and dealing with a deductible that I rarely hit so and as a result rarely get much help from ACA. I also feel the suck of taxes taken out of my income to subsidize those that can't afford to buy HCI themselves.

I look at Gallop's long running ACA popularity poll and see it rather ever hit 50% - that tells more about the effectiveness of ACA than every spreadsheet and projection you can cite. Wanna bet the base approval number is those getting something for cheap or for nothing?
 
LOL, again with the "projections and trends" mantra. Those aren't real numbers or data, they're suppositions and guesses.


LOL "projected costs" mean squat. Actual costs DO.

I'm guessing you asked "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" because you assumed there wasn't an obvious and ready answer that would infuriate the right. The answer, of course, being the ACA, whose savings vastly exceeded promises and humiliated the rightwing doomsayers.

Actual cost growth in health care in the ACA era has been among the lowest ever recorded, despite the highest coverage levels in history.
 
I'm guessing you asked "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" because you assumed there wasn't an obvious and ready answer that would infuriate the right. The answer, of course, being the ACA, whose savings vastly exceeded promises and humiliated the rightwing doomsayers.

Actual cost growth in health care in the ACA era has been among the lowest ever recorded, despite the highest coverage levels in history.
I've heard the mantras and slogans over and over. Not convinced. And as the Gallop poll shows neither are many others.

Thanks for a civil discussion, I think it's time we agree to disagree and wander off.
 
The more people that is covered... the lower the cost will go.

When American had 10's and 100's of thousands with "Union Sponsored Health Care"... the cost was lower, because of the high volume of people who were covered through these group program policies.

When Union Busting went into overdrive, the cost of Medical Insurance began to "skyrocket"... It's basic math!!! ( aside from the basic math, when the number of insured people declined... the Insurance and Medical Community saw an opportunity to "Price Gouge" !!!!


No matter how it unfolds, the future will "break up these networks" and people will be free to choose their own provider of choice... not from some list such as that which the networks currently provide.

Networks are a Collusive Agreement Based System between "Medical Networks" and "Insurance Carriers".. That is something were two entities are working against the individual. Networks make it harder to get the test people need in a timely manner, and when they do, these doctors Play Feeder System Players" to their partners within the Network.

It never made sense that a person would pay more if they went outside the network, their insurance would not cover the cost, and would take too much time to authorize a person to go outside the network. These same systems, rush people "out of hospitals"... try every kind of test to avoid doing the costly test that would produce better information.

I would hope to see Federal Funding Programs for Medical Professions, to set up centers across this country, with multiple MRI Machine and Other Speciality Machines, to drive down the "Monopoly that Hospitals and their Networks have on MRI"... it's not new technology... its been around a while.. yet they still charge a rate as if its a rare testing unit. We should have 100's of Thousands of these machine across the nation... that is in proximity to where every citizen can access it within a reasonable distance. There would not be a backlog and long waiting times. They can do a Scans.. that scan multiple body systems all during the same process, rather than a individual scan for each and every little thing. It's does not make sense.. to limit this powerful machine to such energy wasting abuse, just for the sake of pursuing "higher profits" by requiring "a different scan for each things". For one, it expose the individual to too much magnetic resonance. ((MRIs use a strong magnetic field and radio waves)) - Ultra Sounds should never have the high cost they have...

It's time the public call out the Medical Community and Insurance Systems on these "Cost Gouging Games".

The more informed people invest to become, the more they can know how to stand up to these "Greed Machine Systems" that have been created in the Medical Community and the Insurance Systems.

People who get trapped in these Networks, should go and try and get their Medical Records, and watch the spin circle they are put through. When their doctors join another part of the network, the records belong to the previous part of the network, and they make you go through a hassel to get those records. ACA and Digital Medical Records Access would have stopped that mess of these companies holding people records hostage to keep them in their networks.
 
I was seeing a doctor who was part of a network, and he joined another organization, that was part of the same Hospital System, and they told me... the doctor no longer had my records when he relocated, and I'd have to go back to the place he previously was and fill out a request for the records.

To me, this is not good, because the records should have been accessible to the doctor who created the medical files, which was the only doctor I saw in that organization...

It's frustrating because that's too much sensitive info for it to be in the hands of someone who no longer has the doctor that I was seeing within their organization.
Furthermore... I don't write my SSN on all those paper forms they give, nor should they ask anyone to do so. If they want it, "type it into the system" or deal with the Insurance which has all that info contained in the Insurance Carrier's records, because they "ask for the insurance card"... its no need to ask anyone to write their SSN on some paper that floats within their office.

The VA only ask for the last 4, because they have the info that is connected to the VA Medical Card.
 
"most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole"

That's because to get the same or better health outcomes at nearly half the cost, those countries not only pay much less for admin and drugs, they also pay less in doctors and mgr salaries. BTW, the claim that the UHC countries wait-time is much longer than in the US is a farce and has never been proven.

You're preachin' to the choir, bro, so blow some of that bluesmoke at a repub on this forum.


OL
 
You're preachin' to the choir, bro, so blow some of that bluesmoke at a repub on this forum.


OL



I'm just trolling with facts. Trolling for a repub, I'll probably get nuthin' but bait stealers. Fudmuckers. A colloquial fisherman's term.
 
Back
Top Bottom