Ocasio-Cortez calls question about how to pay for Medicare for all ‘puzzling’

[Deuce]

This is not a single payer environment and, unlike UHC, we are not on the hook for paying someone else’s equivalent of a premium, deductible, or out of pocket costs. So again, I ask for your math in detail. How would you raise $3 trillion?

You're not on the hook for paying someone else's taxes either. I don't understand the objection here.

We spend 3.3 trillion on healthcare, and you're asking me where 3 trillion will come from.

 

[Bullseye]

Yea, there are those who are scared by higher education and they are Trump supporters.

Great comeback, your wit and intelligence dazzles me. You could probably get admitted at BU if you lied about your SAT scores.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I'm disturbed you're not concerned with the quality of healthcare coverage. My analogy would be a quality of healthcare coverage with a 'mosquito netting of coverage' as if in the jungle compared to a quality of healthcare coverage with a 'fully clothes covereage' as if in the jungle. Probably the fully clothes covered healthcare covers more areas of the body, is cheaper and covers more people but isn't as effective. Yet you tout single payor healthcare? Why?

I talked a LOT about quality of care and how the US is NOWHERE NEAR the top. If you didn't see that it's because you literally read nothing I wrote, including the post you quoted. When you do that, get back to me.

Every other UHC country on earth, literally dozens of countries, manage to have a healthcare system where every man, woman and child in the country has full, high quality coverage at less than HALF THE COST per capita of what we pay. Stop pretending that UHC costs more, we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet are nowhere near the top in healthcare outcomes or life expectancy and are near dead last among first world countries for percentage covered. Your distraction is rejected.

We have a plethora of problems, but there's only one side of the aisle that even wants to attempt to fix the problems. There has never in history been an effective healthcare system governed by "the invisible hand of the free market". It's fantasy nonsense. The rest of the world could triple or quadruple what they pay doctors and it still wouldn't double their cost of healthcare. Our issue is not what we pay doctors!

No, we do not have the best healthcare in the world. If it's inadequate at serving most of the population, it isn't good. If we had a single machine that could cure all diseases, but it could only be used once a day, we can't claim that our technology gives us "the best" healthcare system, as it's completely inadequate for our needs. We don't win in quality of care, access to medical facilities, efficiency, participation, or life expectancy. Please do not try to excuse our failures and recognize that we have a serious problem.

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

Healthcare that most people can't afford is not good healthcare. You're excusing our failures and looking back to a time you never lived in with rose colored goggles. Perhaps if you actually experienced something else in your life you might know the difference. I've lived in Germany for nearly a decade now, and while my family in friends in the states are literally dying or going bankrupt because they can't afford the healthcare they need, every person I know in Germany has full coverage at a fraction of the cost and just waves their card when they need anything.

I just went through a consultation, multiple screenings, surgery and post-consultation without paying a dime, and my monthly rate is about 320 euros and covers all of my dependents including dental. Why are you so reluctant to just admit that our healthcare isn't the best and there's a ton we can do to improve it?

If California did that it would be like the ****ing 30th example. How many examples do you need? Can you provide ONE example of a fully free market healthcare system that isn't awful? Somalia must be nice right?

 

[maxparrish]

You're shifting goalposts to quality of care. There's plenty of data we can go over regarding that. But the arguments here are specifically about cost. No instance of UHC is more expensive than what we have in the US today and it's not even close.

I'm was only noting, in addition to the cost issue you raised, that for the funds spent, the average results are probably not as good. In any event, you clarified your comment, you weren't making a comparison within a countries historical experience, but one between the US and others.

However, the typical cost savings "selling point" is an argument is over how much cost savings might one expect in a 'before-after' comparison, which may be small. If the UHI experience in Europe was not a massive cost savings the upon each countries adoption, then one might expect the same experience here.

In that case, international comparisons and differences far more to do with something other than a countries adoption of UHI.

 

[Napoleon]

You're not on the hook for paying someone else's taxes either. I don't understand the objection here.

We spend 3.3 trillion on healthcare, and you're asking me where 3 trillion will come from.

Again, you still don’t understand. And yes, I’m asking you exactly how you intend to raise that $3 trillion. I pointed out what would be required (30% Medicare tax rate), you disagreed but offered no alternative. Your resistance to answering that question is both predictable and telling. The supporters of UHC never want to talk about the enormous tax rates required to support the systems they want to emulate.

You want to talk about the system but you avoid talking about how they have to pay for it at all costs. Not surprising since nobody wins elections by promising to ravage the paychecks of their constituents. But you can’t duck and weave forever. If you want UHC then you will eventually have to define precisely how you’re going to raise the $3 trillion required to pay for it.

 

[Deuce]

I'm was only noting, in addition to the cost issue you raised, that for the funds spent, the average results are probably not as good. In any event, you clarified your comment, you weren't making a comparison within a countries historical experience, but one between the US and others.

However, the typical cost savings "selling point" is an argument is over how much cost savings might one expect in a 'before-after' comparison, which may be small. If the UHI experience in Europe was not a massive cost savings the upon each countries adoption, then one might expect the same experience here.

In that case, international comparisons and differences far more to do with something other than a countries adoption of UHI.

You claim the average results are not as good. How sure are you of this?

 

[Deuce]

Again, you still don’t understand.

Yes, that was more or less the gist of "I don't understand the objection here."

And yes, I’m asking you exactly how you intend to raise that $3 trillion. I pointed out what would be required (30% Medicare tax rate), you disagreed but offered no alternative. Your resistance to answering that question is both predictable and telling. The supporters of UHC never want to talk about the enormous tax rates required to support the systems they want to emulate. You want to talk about the system but you avoid talking about how they have to pay for it at all costs. Not surprising since nobody wins elections by promising to ravage the paychecks of their constituents.

It's not a 30% medicare tax rate unless you're also going to cut a bunch of other taxes, because you've left out quite a large amount of federal, state, and local taxpayer-funded health services.

But you need to clarify this objection of "being responsible for someone else's premiums." You're not responsible for someone else's taxes.

 

[Napoleon]

It's not a 30% medicare tax rate unless you're also going to cut a bunch of other taxes, because you've left out quite a large amount of federal, state, and local taxpayer-funded health services.

The proposal on the table is to transition to Federal single payer at a cost greater than the entirety of Federal revenue today. You’re not going to double Federal revenue to pay for it by cutting taxes. You can do that with a 30% Medicare tax. What’s your detailed alternative? If you don’t have one then just say that.

But you need to clarify this objection of "being responsible for someone else's premiums." You're not responsible for someone else's taxes.

I laid out this scenario already in post #50.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Again, you still don’t understand. And yes, I’m asking you exactly how you intend to raise that $3 trillion. I pointed out what would be required (30% Medicare tax rate), you disagreed but offered no alternative. Your resistance to answering that question is both predictable and telling. The supporters of UHC never want to talk about the enormous tax rates required to support the systems they want to emulate. You want to talk about the system but you avoid talking about how they have to pay for it at all costs. Not surprising since nobody wins elections by promising to ravage the paychecks of their constituents.

UK tax rates differ very little from the USA, while comprehensive health and social serices are provided to all, free at the point of use.
(We still outlive Americans by two or three years so despite recent damage from almost a decade of Conservative starving the system of full funding, the care provided can't be too bad!)
Funds which currently go to admistration of insurance companies, pricing, billing, negotiating rates, and profits all go direct to the single payer.

 

[Deuce]

The proposal on the table is to transition to Federal single payer at a cost greater than the entirety of Federal revenue today. You’re not going to double Federal revenue to pay for it by cutting taxes. You can do that with a 30% Medicare tax. What’s your detailed alternative? If you don’t have one then just say that.



I laid out this scenario already in post #50.

You're the one still not getting it. You don't need 3 trillion additional tax dollars.

 

[maxparrish]

Every other UHC country on earth, literally dozens of countries, manage to have a healthcare system where every man, woman and child in the country has full, high quality coverage at less than HALF THE COST per capita of what we pay. Stop pretending that UHC costs more, we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world yet are nowhere near the top in healthcare outcomes or life expectancy and are near dead last among first world countries for percentage covered. Your distraction is rejected.

I'm not firmly on any side on this issue, and remain open minded. However, I am a skeptic of almost any proposed "solution", as well as the status quo, because I don't believe anyone sufficiently grasps the real mechanisms behind cost and quality and their shaping by culture and country specific factors.

For example, the US government already pays one-half of all health care expenditures. So if the US as a whole spends twice as much, using your "logic" we already have enough. Under this "logic" if all private insurance and healthcare spending ceased, the government itself could pay 100 percent of the cost by better spending what it already has been spending (inefficiently apparently). Families, employees, and employers would get a huge windfall of 1.5 trillion dollars and the government would provide these medical benefits "for free".

Yet, no one believes it (including you I suspect). NONE of the romantic UHI policy planners believe their own propaganda - hence, even their scenarios always require massive new sources of funding FROM TAXPAYERS.

Until such time as UHI romantics do more than spout utopian visions that conflict with financial realties then I take all of this with a grain of salt - when you'all are pounding at the door of Congress to provide miracle UHI out of existing government funds spent on health care, then get back to us.

 

[Napoleon]

UK tax rates differ very little from the USA, while comprehensive health and social serices are provided to all, free at the point of use.
(We still outlive Americans by two or three years so despite recent damage from almost a decade of Conservative starving the system of full funding, the care provided can't be too bad!)
Funds which currently go to admistration of insurance companies, pricing, billing, negotiating rates, and profits all go direct to the single payer.

Yes, well perhaps that’s why the majority of NHS trusts are operating in the red. You have a system you can’t pay for.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I'm not firmly on any side on this issue, and remain open minded. However, I am a skeptic of almost any proposed "solution", as well as the status quo, because I don't believe anyone sufficiently grasps the real mechanisms behind cost and quality and their shaping by culture and country specific factors.

For example, the US government already pays one-half of all health care expenditures. So if the US as a whole spends twice as much, using your "logic" we already have enough. Under this "logic" if all private insurance and healthcare spending ceased, the government itself could pay 100 percent cover by better spending what it already has. Families, employees, and employers would get a huge windfall of hundreds 1.5 trillion dollars and provide these medical benefits "for free".

Yet, no one believes it (including you I suspect). NONE of the romantic UHI policy planners believe their own propaganda - hence, scenarios always require massive new sources of funding FROM TAXPAYERS.

Until such time as UHI romantics do more than spout utopian visions that conflict with financial realties then I take all of this with a grain of salt - when you'all are pounding at the door of Congress to provide miracle UHI out of existing government funds spent on health care, then get back to us.

Every other country on earth is cheaper, including dozens of countries with UHC that have HIGHER quality of care than us. You can dance around this simple fact all you want, but it doesn't change the reality. It works everywhere else and there's no successful example of high quality totally free-market healthcare anywhere in the world.

Yes, well perhaps that’s why the majority of NHS trusts are operating in the red. You have a system you can’t pay for.

Your statement is confusing considering the UK pays less than half what we do per capita for healthcare. [1]

 

[Napoleon]

You're the one still not getting it. You don't need 3 trillion additional tax dollars.

Details.

 

[prometeus]

Great comeback, your wit and intelligence dazzles me. You could probably get admitted at BU if you lied about your SAT scores.

Struck a nerve eh?

 

[prometeus]

LOL.

This isn’t ‘dumb as a brick’.

What’s dumb as a brick is the inability to understand what Ocasio-Cortez is talking about.

And what’s even stupider is broadcasting that fact publicly in a post, and somehow imagining that you’re superior to her because of it.

Bingo.:applaud:applaud:applaud

 

[year2late]

While there are many reasons why healthcare cost in America is high...

Start looking at the fact we pay our doctors 3 times more, and medical school education is 6 times more... than Europe.

Have to make the universities ditch all their admin positions and have them run by strictly professors again(something they do not want to do).... and pay our doctors 3 times less(they won't like that, and it will probably cause a shortage in doctors).

We also would have to decrease the service's and the amount of nurses hospitals have.

ALSO have to decrease the wages of lawyers, and medical malpractice insurance... because people have been able to borderline bankrupt hospitals on lawsuits. This opens the whole can of worms on how are legal structure is and the amount of regulations that is making the legal structure extremely expensive(Something the fat democrat law firms don't want to give up)

America's Healthcare is the most expensive, but it is the best healthcare. We have the best medical technology and doctors by far.... even though not everyone gets access to the best of course..... because it's expensive.

I hope you understand.... It is not so simple as let's "Just make Universal healthcare', and it isn't expensive BECAUSE it's private. It's actually expensive because of government subsidized medical education, Lawyer lobbyists, a regulation bloat that increased the amount of required positions for administration.

It is the best for those that have access to it, That is the problem that has plagued this nation for many decades.

This has been so much over time.


"everyone has access to health care in the US...just go to an ER"


10s of thousands have died in this country because of lack of access to medical care through insurance, Best health care? The best would not allow people to die of very treatable diseases because someone was not rich enough to get the foot in the door of decent ongoing primary care.

 

[Napoleon]

It is the best for those that have access to it, That is the problem that has plagued this nation for many decades.

This has been so much over time.


"everyone has access to health care in the US...just go to an ER"


10s of thousands have died in this country because of lack of access to medical care through insurance, Best health care? The best would not allow people to die of very treatable diseases because someone was not rich enough to get the foot in the door of decent ongoing primary care.

Well, let’s get to the core of that though. More people die in this country because of preventable disease rather than mere “treatable” disease persay. UHC isn’t a solution for people who don’t take care of their bodies. That’s the real issue here.

 

[Deuce]

Details.

We already spend ~1.5 trillion tax dollars on healthcare.

 

[Napoleon]

We already spend ~1.5 trillion tax dollars on healthcare.

I’m not asking what we spend. I’m asking how you raise $3 trillion and you still haven’t provided a detailed answer.

 

[Deuce]

I’m not asking what we spend. I’m asking how you raise $3 trillion and you still haven’t provided a detailed answer.

1.5t already taken care of, therefore 30% medicare tax not required. Do you agree?

 

[Threegoofs]

Good luck with her.

Maybe someday you’ll understand.

But my guess is, you have neither the inclination nor the ability.

 

[American]

Maybe someday you’ll understand.

But my guess is, you have neither the inclination nor the ability.

I know a communist born out of ignorance when I see one.

 

[celticwar17]

It is the best for those that have access to it, That is the problem that has plagued this nation for many decades.

This has been so much over time.


"everyone has access to health care in the US...just go to an ER"


10s of thousands have died in this country because of lack of access to medical care through insurance, Best health care? The best would not allow people to die of very treatable diseases because someone was not rich enough to get the foot in the door of decent ongoing primary care.

Then go after the universities, regulations, and law firms.... Universal health care will not solve the problem... it's just trying to put a band-aid over the issue.

I am 100% serious... unless the medical school cost goes down, medical liscense requirements goes down, and hospitals/doctors can't be sued for all their worth so easily... with countless paperwork and bureaucratic bloat that is must must to run a hospital...
Universal Healthcare is impossible to have sustainably.

Address the real problems... Trust me, you don't have the magical idea that fixes everything... it would be impossible to pass such a thing effciently and sustainably in this country, you can get away with it in some places elsewhere, but not here.... we have a foundation that is messed up... and legally, you cannot take out the foundation without huge unanimous legislation. You have to tackle all these problem separately, nationally and locally.

 

[Deuce]

I know a communist born out of ignorance when I see one.

You don't even know what communism is let alone recognize them :lamo