Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?

Um except that the 30 year old already pays into Medicare and gets no service. All that is suggested is an increase in services - even if it is minor. The added tax burden - I don't believe this country wants to pay.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The ratio of expenditures to revenues would be much lower for younger beneficiaries. You can't really compare the cost of providing health coverage to a 75 year old with a history of heart disease to providing coverage to a 30 year old.

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

With this proposal Medicare would be supported by the payroll tax as it is today and premiums paid to the Federal Government. Individual states could opt-out from the Federal System as long as they offer a single-payer system. States that opted out of the Federal system would get the moneys from the payroll tax paid to the federal system.

Click to expand...

Or we could go back to the old system that most people were satisfied with. From 2006 data:



Compared to Canadian levels of satisfaction with their health care system:

pbrauer said:

Perhaps I was unclear, for the purposes of this plan I would leave the payroll tax alone. You would purchase and pay the premiums through the government. Today the Medicare portion of the payroll tax pays for hospitalization for 65+ seniors.

Click to expand...

Oh, then no.

RiverDad said:

Or we could go back to the old system that most people were satisfied with. From 2006 data:

Compared to Canadian levels of satisfaction with their health care system:

Click to expand...

Thanks for your graphs but were are not talking about the quality of care, were are talking ABOUT HOW YOU PAY FOR IT!!! UNDERSTAND????

pbrauer said:

Nevermind CJ, you don't seem to want to read past my first sentence.

Click to expand...

I read what you said - it doesn't make sense.

Do you honestly believe that government can provide the same service as a private enterprise at a lesser cost? If you do, please name one such endeavour taken on by government that became more efficient and less costly.

Dismiss my comments all you want - you still haven't provided any rational explanation about how it would work. I can pretty much guarantee that if it takes ten employees at an insurance company to process claims it will take 30 government employees, at higher wages, with three times the management staff and political appointees to do it through government. Just look at the TSA stink a decade ago.

pbrauer said:

Thanks for your graphs but were are not talking about the quality of care, were are talking ABOUT HOW YOU PAY FOR IT!!! UNDERSTAND????

Click to expand...

We're already NOT PAYING for Medicare.

pbrauer said:

Thanks for your graphs but were are not talking about the quality of care, were are talking ABOUT HOW YOU PAY FOR IT!!! UNDERSTAND????

Click to expand...

With respect, that's just another stupid response. How can you possibly discuss what you pay or how you pay unless you discuss the quality and for that matter quantity or what you're buying? Do you have any idea what happens in a single payer system like Canada's?

Deuce said:

Review the cost numbers for other nations with such a system

Click to expand...

...now adjust them for R&D, salaries, and adjustments for wait times.

I don't understand why anyone thinks healthcare run by government is such a good thing. And it's really disheartening to see so many in this poll so willing to accept such a thing. Not one program run by the federal government has a record of being run efficient. Every last one of them is riddled with waste and fraud. I don't want those with such a poor record to be part of my healthcare. Not to mention the complete government takeover of another industry. Sad so many have no problem with that and actually welcome it.

Deuce said:

Review the cost numbers for other nations with such a system

Click to expand...

Point #1:


Point #2:


Point #3:

Point #4:

Conclusions:

1.) The US Government is already spending MORE on health care per capita than the Canadian Government but only covering a fraction of the population compared to Canada.
2.) The share of government spending as a percent of ALL government spending is higher in the US than it is in Canada.
3.) The way that Canada manages to have a health care system which is so lean and efficient is that they practice severe rationing.

vesper said:

I don't understand why anyone thinks healthcare run by government is such a good thing. And it's really disheartening to see so many in this poll so willing to accept such a thing. Not one program run by the federal government has a record of being run efficient. Every last one of them is riddled with waste and fraud. I don't want those with such a poor record to be part of my healthcare. Not to mention the complete government takeover of another industry. Sad so many have no problem with that and actually welcome it.

Click to expand...

:agree: How many thousands of cars have to be recalled by GM for faulty steering problems? SOS, just different management now. You'd think they'd try a little harder to look good after the big bailout!

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

RiverDad said:

Point #1:

The U.S. government spends more on health care than on Social Security and national defense combined.​

Point #2:

According to the World Health Organization's "World Health Indicators 2012":

In 2009 Canada had a per capita government expenditure of $3,191 (us dollars) for health spending.
In 2009 the US had a per capita government expenditure of $3,795 (us dollars) for health spending.​

Point #3:

In 2009 Canada spent 11.4% of Gross Domestic Product on health expenditures.
In 2009 the US spent 17.6% of Gross Domestic Product on health expenditures.​

Point #4:

In 2009 the Canadian Government spending on health care accounted for 18.3%% of all government expenditures.
In 2009 the US Government spending on health care accounted for 19.6%% of all government expenditures.​

Conclusions:

1.) The US Government is already spending MORE on health care per capita than the Canadian Government but only covering a fraction of the population compared to Canada.
2.) The share of government spending as a percent of ALL government spending is higher in the US than it is in Canada.
3.) The way that Canada manages to have a health care system which is so lean and efficient is that they practice severe rationing.

Click to expand...

Your Canadian numbers are either wrong or misleading.

'By the end of 2013, Canadians will have racked up a bill of $211 billion on health care for the year, a new report says.

In a new national report that crunches the numbers, the Canadian Institute for Health Information says that multi-billion-dollar price tag breaks down to about $5,988 per patient.'

By the numbers: How much did Canada spend on health care in 2013? - National | Globalnews.ca


You clearly don't know how the Canadian system works.

The provinces are responsible for their own provincial healthcare - and they tax their citizens/companies separately to help pay for those costs.

The federal government provides transfer payments to each province to help cover the total...but these payments are not NEARLY enough to cover the whole cost.

So, just quoting what the federal government spends on healthcare does not even begin to cover the total costs.

DA60 said:

You clearly don't know how the Canadian system works.

Click to expand...

I clearly know more about everything than you.

1.) The dollar spending is converted to US currency.
2.) The WHO numbers I quote refer to Government spending while yours combine government, private insurance, plus personal spending. I compared like-to-like.
3.) My figures are from 2009, not from 2013.

ecofarm said:

Medicare/aid is the largest source of fraud in US history.

Click to expand...

This may well be, but one would think, that with some effort, we could combat this fraud.
Probably quite a bit of reform is necessary.....reform disliked by some, no doubt....

earthworm said:

This may well be, but one would think, that with some effort, we could combat this fraud.
Probably quite a bit of reform is necessary.....reform disliked by some, no doubt....

Click to expand...

It seems to me the reform should come, and be tested, before any expansion.

sedan said:

Absolutely, yes.

I would also point out that a great many other liberals feel the same way.

That's why poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don't like ObamaCare, but are in favor of health insurance reform.

Click to expand...

Then I wonder, why was this not proposed "back in the day" ???
Or was it, and was shot down by ???

earthworm said:

This may well be, but one would think, that with some effort, we could combat this fraud.

Click to expand...

And this gets to the crux of one issue - who has greater incentive to detect and prevent fraud, a private, profit-making organization or a government which simply passes the costs of fraud onto taxpayers?

RiverDad said:

And this gets to the crux of one issue - who has greater incentive to detect and prevent fraud, a private, profit-making organization or a government which simply passes the costs of fraud onto taxpayers?

Click to expand...

And MasterCard doesn't pass the cost of fraud onto it's cardholders?

I would only support creation of a new part(program) to Medicare; say Part E that would provide insurance to those unable to attain insurance due to costly pre-existing conditions. It could also include coverage for those that don't qualify for Medicaid but earn too little to afford the lowest cost coverage available to them. This would be less costly in the long run than the subsidies taxpayers are now footing the bill for while still paying for those seeking emergency care as they are exempt from the mandate.

No no no no no never ever ever.

Having worked with Medicare and seeing how the Medicare system works I would not wish that upon the nation. Giving the government sole payer status for everyone would also be a mistake.

Removable Mind said:

And MasterCard doesn't pass the cost of fraud onto it's cardholders?

Click to expand...

There's an upper limit to what Mastercard can pass on - the retailer receives a discounted amount of the purchase price of the good and when that discount gets too low, then they no longer have an incentive to take Mastercard rather thabn cash.

Cash = 100% of item value.
Mastercard = 96% of item value.
Mastercard with all fraud costs pushed to retailers = 90% of time value

At some point between 96% and 90% retailers begin refusing to take Mastercard without imposing a surcharge.

JayDubya said:

No, I support replacing it with nothing and Medicare for none.

Click to expand...

Glad you are in the 1% and not in the 51% .
Maybe, in the far future, when we have no more "poor", and are education is no longer "poor" ....and when we DO have a better people....Medicare, ect, can hit the trash piles...
until then..............

RiverDad said:

There's an upper limit to what Mastercard can pass on - the retailer receives a discounted amount of the purchase price of the good and when that discount gets too low, then they no longer have an incentive to take Mastercard rather thabn cash.

Cash = 100% of item value.
Mastercard = 96% of item value.
Mastercard with all fraud costs pushed to retailers = 90% of time value

At some point between 96% and 90% retailers begin refusing to take Mastercard without imposing a surcharge.

Click to expand...

Well...after all of the stuff you listed. When you see up to 30% interest charged to folks...and even the best credit rated cardholders at half that...believe me, cardholders are indeed taking on those type of loses.

earthworm said:

Glad you are in the 1% and not in the 51% .

Click to expand...

Health care is paid for by all of us. The problem with the current system is that there is no price discipline. If someone else is paying for your health care then you have no incentive to live sensibly, to price shop, nothing. Price of medical services never even enters the minds of consumers. Compare that to shopping for a new TV.

So if there was no health insurance market for regular health care, then everyone would be paying for their own health care consumption. The money to buy that health care consumption would come from the savings created by not having to pay health insurance premiums.

The cost of truly expensive health procedures would be paid via catastrophic insurance and this would operate the way all insurance operates - it would cover people for RARE & EXPENSIVE illness events.

The overall point here is that a typical person SHOULD, over the course of their lifetime, save enough towards health care expenditures so that what they actually end up spending over their lives zeroes out by the time they kick the bucket. We can have mechanisms (overdraft insurance) in place to prevent people running out of savings if they live longer than expected. That's a rational model.

The irrational model is to spend more on your own healthcare than you provided for over the course of your life.

Guess which model we're working with these days.

RiverDad said:

I clearly know more about everything than you.

1.) The dollar spending is converted to US currency.
2.) The WHO numbers I quote refer to Government spending while yours combine government, private insurance, plus personal spending. I compared like-to-like.
3.) My figures are from 2009, not from 2013.

Click to expand...

One - to say you know more about 'everything' then I do obviously a ridiculous statement since you have no idea what I know - so you cannot know how much you may or may not know then I...which should be staggeringly obvious - but apparently not to you.


Not only can you not get it together to answer my questions in the 'race' thread...you cannot seem to even fathom my post here.

1) The difference in exchange is only about 10%...hardly worth mentioning.
2) NO - you are still not getting it. You are quoting ONLY federal transfer payments to the provinces. The federal government has almost ZERO directly to do with healthcare in Canada. It just takes the taxes (both federal and provincial) and then distributes them. These monies are nowhere near sufficient to run provincial healthcare services - which is how Canada's healthcare system operates. It is run on a provincial level - not a federal one. When you go to Ontario. you go to a hospital under Ontario jurisdiction (OHIP) - it's not a federal hospital in ANY WAY. It is owned and operated by the provincial government.
So to just quote federal spending (which your numbers do) is ridiculous.
I have lived extensively in both America and Canada...I probably know the Canadian system FAR MORE then you.
3) So what they are from 4 years earlier? Are you seriously suggesting that Canada's healthcare costs almost doubled in 4 years? Come on now - you cannot be that ignorant.
Your numbers are only taking federal expenses into account, which - as I have shown - is barely half of health costs per person in Canada.


It appears you are good at posting charts and stuff...but you appear to be not so good at actually understanding them.