3leftsdoo
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 18,105
- Reaction score
- 5,175
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Food is a basic human right ,lodging is a basic human right.
Correct.
Food is a basic human right ,lodging is a basic human right.
So do you think a person that refuses to work should have the same food and same lodging as a person that works hard and is otherwise successful?Correct.
So do you think a person that refuses to work should have the same food and same lodging as a person that works hard and is otherwise successful?
But decoupling resources and capacity from the actual need and instead subjecting both to artificial political budget targets is exactly the danger that's being described here.
If the argument is "underfund hospitals and they'll be forced to find a way to make it work," the VA is not an unreasonable example of how that thinking can go awry.
Food is a basic human right ,lodging is a basic human right.
Lots of people refuse to take jobs that they think are beneath them to do. Every hear the excuse for illegal aliens that they take jobs American won't do? Yes there are people that would rather sit at home than take a job they don't want to do. Do you think they should be eating ribeye and living in 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage hones?Refuses to work comes with sooooo much baggage. As does "same food and lodging".
You mean they refuse to take a job that is likely to kill them before they hit 60? Or refuse a job that they aren't capable of physically, or mentally, of doing?
Does "same" mean clean safe functional? Or does it mean everyone gets a mansion?
That's a re-allocation of health spending, not actual savings. Which might be a great idea. But it still means we'll be spending what we're spending.
Lots of people refuse to take jobs that they think are beneath them to do. Every hear the excuse for illegal aliens that they take jobs American won't do? Yes there are people that would rather sit at home than take a job they don't want to do. Do you think they should be eating ribeye and living in 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage hones?
Other developed nations don't pay their doctors nearly as much, and still have more doctors than we do, but I don't think people are going to revolt because a few doctors got a pay cut. A lot of our healthcare costs go to corporate profits, administrative costs, executive salaries, R&D, red tape, actuaries, middlemen, technology, and facilities. Only a tiny fraction of healthcare costs goes to the direct cost of middle class healthcare labor (including nurses, CNAs, and family practice doctors, and excluding specialized doctors). Cutting healthcare costs will hurt some people, mostly wealthy people, and help tens of millions of middle class and lower class people better afford healthcare.
So do you think a person that refuses to work should have the same food and same lodging as a person that works hard and is otherwise successful?
Refuses to work comes with sooooo much baggage. As does "same food and lodging".
You mean they refuse to take a job that is likely to kill them before they hit 60? Or refuse a job that they aren't capable of physically, or mentally, of doing?
Does "same" mean clean safe functional? Or does it mean everyone gets a mansion?
Lots of people refuse to take jobs that they think are beneath them to do. Every hear the excuse for illegal aliens that they take jobs American won't do? Yes there are people that would rather sit at home than take a job they don't want to do. Do you think they should be eating ribeye and living in 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage hones?
We would be re-allocating billions if not trillions of dollars to actual health care. Hospitals would get paid for all services not having to over charge to compensate for all the people who currently do not pay. Everyone wins except the insurance people. No more getting rich using our money to pay our health care while taking trillions for themselves.
We can't simply keep accepting ballooning doctor, hospital, procedure, and drug costs.
This trajectory has to change or someday in our lifetimes, routine healthcare will only be available to the wealthy.
Thank you; kind of unreal some of the stuff that comes up here...
Many hospitals are barely profitable.
The prices of providers are overinflated to begin with. They have been feasting at a banquet for far too long, propped up by insurance companies who in turn charge high premiums. As we see in our western neighbors, cost of care is not that high. Most hospitals could benefit from price reform in management and administration.
When government controls payout, providers have to start cutting costs, and so they should.
Every other Western nation has managed it, and spends roughly 1/2 what America spends on healthcare per capita, usually with better outcomes.
Surely Trump can come up with a plan to fix th....oh. Right. Never mind.
Every other Western nation has managed it, and spends roughly 1/2 what America spends on healthcare per capita, usually with better outcomes.
Surely Trump can come up with a plan to fix th....oh. Right. Never mind.
No. The trillions of dollars spent to maintain the insurance companies would go towards healthcare. The billions paid to the CEO's so they can afford penthouses, private jets, multimillion dollar bonuses and such would now actually be available to pay for health care. The billions of dollars going to all the insurance workers would now go directly to health care. The burden taken away from the employer would allow more money to be paid in wages and taxes to fund health care. Trade offs. But clearly eliminating all the middle men would free up plenty of money to pay health care cost instead. Plus all the dickering over who is responsible for bills and who will pay is cleared up stream lining billing and payment which is half the staff of a lot of medical facilities. Oh and a Tylenol would go from $10. back to 10cents.
There would be no devastation. All the people in the insurance industry would move to health care where they would provide health care instead of just syphoning away money needed for heath care.
I remember our conversations where you claimed to "know all sorts of people in other countries, mumble mumble public health care is horrible mumble mumble etc" and I found out quickly that you had made all of that crap up.
Time to go dig up those conversations so others can witness you flailing around like a carp out of water.
As for uncharted territory, every other 32 developed nations has successfully implemented universal healthcare systems that are far cheaper than the US and most are very good. This territory is at charted as it can get and all we have to do is copy.
Something that has been absent in the conversation of why healtcare costs are so high is that part of the reason is they use those fees to offset the losses they take providing subsidized services.Looks like this time around we're getting to the level of seriousness where trade-offs and winners-and-losers will get explored. Which is good! But it underscore the risks that primary candidates run in hitching their wagons to a very speculative idea without fully exploring those trade-offs.
Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under ‘Medicare for All’
The Stuart Altman quote is the crux of it:
This would be uncharted territory.
The cost of med school and malpractice insurance completely justifies what doctors are paid. If you plan to pay doctors less than we need to do away with medical malpractice lawsuits and drastically slash the cost of med school. Otherwise we’ll have a severe doctor shortage very quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, but these systems are not merely cost-sharing schemes operating in the same for-profit environment we have now as MFA proposes. Emulating those other systems would require nationalization of healthcare providers, mountains of price regulations, and a very high tax rate among other things. Is it charted? That’s not really the right question. The question should be whether or not it’s scalable.