Replies: 73
| visibility 1
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Republicans: "The American People come first! MAGA!"
Jan 18, 2018, 11:35 AM
|
|
Democrats: "Ok then let's have universal basic healthcare"
Republicans: "No that's not what we meant"
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
They mean cuts everyhwere, aside from
Jan 18, 2018, 11:38 AM
|
|
military, wars, and walls. That's what will make America great as far as the message they are sending. I am not sure that is what they mean but it seems that is what they are saying.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Shhhh
Jan 18, 2018, 11:39 AM
|
|
I"m trying to get waterpawskitiger wound up
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111647]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73783
Joined: 9/10/03
|
you are doing it wrong
Jan 18, 2018, 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14056
Joined: 9/2/03
|
OMG!!! Don't show this to the
Jan 18, 2018, 12:10 PM
|
|
ditzy sorority girl from Bama, she'll flip her $hit on IG!
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Isn't that just what politics is?
Jan 18, 2018, 11:47 AM
|
|
You might as well post something like this:
Republicans: "The American People come first! MAGA!" Democrats: "OK, then let's give everybody a BMW." Republicans: "No that's not what we meant."
Most of politics- positive law- is about identifying priorities for the government to take care of, and how to take care of them. You need to do a lot more work before you can claim it's a contradiction to oppose government paid for, universal basic health care while also being America first.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
How is universal basic health care and a BMW
Jan 18, 2018, 11:50 AM
|
|
even close to being comparable as an example?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
They're both things that some people might like to have
Jan 18, 2018, 11:53 AM
|
|
And things that others might think aren't an effective way of governing. Maybe you need health care more than a car, but having a car is still pretty important. What you're talking about, though, isn't the need for health car, it's the government providing it, and providing it in a certain way. So, why shouldn't the government provide people with cars? And why not BMWs?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I'm still missing your point.
Jan 18, 2018, 11:55 AM
|
|
UBH is an important investment for the USA that can pay back in the long run.
How can buying a car for everybody do the same?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Aren't you kind of trying to miss the point?
Jan 18, 2018, 11:59 AM
|
|
Your post was troll-ish, because you know that the problem with universal health care provided by the government isn't that Republicans don't think people need health care. The analogy to providing a car is simply that it's something people need that's expensive, and that the government could just buy people. A BMW is one type of car that not everybody would want to pay for, just like the kind of healthcare the government would provide through UBH is one type of healthcare the government would provide that not everybody would want to pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Yeah but that point is flippant at best.
Jan 18, 2018, 12:02 PM
|
|
UBH would save the government money in the long run while also helping the american electorate. A car depreciates in value.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
A better example you could have used would be
Jan 18, 2018, 12:06 PM
|
|
investments in better transportation. High Speed Trains etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Explain how having a healthier populace from birth until
Jan 18, 2018, 12:32 PM
|
|
death would be a burden on the government and other people?
The healthier a person is, the better they work and the less days they take off for sickness.
edit to add: a populace that is not not burdened by health care debt. Imagine the increased spending power in the economy.
Message was edited by: FBCoachSC®
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Totally, like when you build more hospitals in Sim City the
Jan 18, 2018, 12:43 PM
|
|
population gets really happy and produces more. I'm sure that would translate into reality.
I can hear the cries already, "IT'S NOT THE SYSTEMS FAULT, WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING ENOUGH FUNDING!!!". Did anyone ever get fired over all of those VA scandals? I don't think they did. I just find it pretty comical the way a lot of people think this would play out, because it's totally contradictory to all available evidence. Remember the Obamacare website roll out? That was a good time, these guys got it this go around though!
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
The VA scandal was from a lack of oversight
Jan 18, 2018, 12:46 PM
|
|
and are you really trying to connect launching a website with providing basic health care for people?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Right, lack of oversight. Just needed some more oversight!
Jan 18, 2018, 12:59 PM
|
|
Just need some more funding! We're this close to making it work guys! lulz
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So the cause of the issue wasn't a lack of oversight?***
Jan 18, 2018, 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Yeah, just a lack of oversight. Easy fix. Throw in some more
Jan 18, 2018, 1:09 PM
|
|
funding and it'd be running like a top.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Once again, You're saying it wasn't?***
Jan 18, 2018, 1:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
when you consider that lack of oversight is an
Jan 18, 2018, 1:25 PM
|
|
Inherent problem in any government run agency, id say the problem is a little deeper than that. But yeah it’s a lot easier to look at a massive fugg up and just write it off as something simple like that.
Did they ever fix the lack of oversight?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
That's a good question that I don't know the answer to
Jan 18, 2018, 1:36 PM
|
|
However, considering we spent more per capita in health care than countries with universal healthcare, I think it's a discussion and eventually policy that needs to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 1/29/05
|
Probably has nothing to do with
Jan 19, 2018, 5:03 PM
|
|
The number of citizens we have in our country. That couldnt possibly be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111647]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73783
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Once again, You're saying it wasn't?***
Jan 18, 2018, 2:31 PM
[ in reply to Once again, You're saying it wasn't?*** ] |
|
jesus, when he brought up sim city has a basis for his argument you should of just given up.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Sim City was the basis for my argument?
Jan 18, 2018, 2:48 PM
|
|
Are you illiterate or just intentionally this dumb?
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 5/17/02
|
Re: Explain how having a healthier populace from birth until
Jan 18, 2018, 12:59 PM
[ in reply to Explain how having a healthier populace from birth until ] |
|
UBH will not create a healthier population. I'd wager those that live an unhealthy lifestyle would become even more irresponsible when .Gov is fully footing the bill.
If I eat fried food, drink beer, and don't exercise it's going to cost a lot of money to keep me alive. Especially as I age. If I have no fiscal incentive to live better under UBH, why would I? It's 'not my money.'
Your logic is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So it's more efficient that a smaller population of
Jan 18, 2018, 1:02 PM
|
|
insurance holders pays that amount than a larger pool of american taxpayers?
Seems cheaper to spread out the cost which would make it easier to absorb.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
And your point wasn't flippant?
Jan 18, 2018, 1:02 PM
[ in reply to Yeah but that point is flippant at best. ] |
|
You completely ignored Republican objections to UBH to make it out like opposing UBH wasn't putting America first.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Oh it is putting America (corporations) first.***
Jan 18, 2018, 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Obamacare was a windfall for insurance
Jan 18, 2018, 1:08 PM
|
|
And, in fact, one reason the health care industry is against repeal of Obamacare and for the Medicaid expansions is that it guarantees them more business. I realize that UBH would nationalize most of that, but I would imagine that many of those same people would welcome that kind of thing because it would somewhat stabilize the way they're being paid instead of having payment be dependent on consumers in a market.
These kinds of things where spending more on the front-end is supposed to save money on the back-end in health care never end up actually saving money, either, unless the program is market based (like Medicare Part D, which was much cheaper than the cost estimates said it would be, but which I would guess still costs us more in net). This is partially because you can never really know how much preventative medicine actually prevents something that never happens. Some analyses have shown that paying for providing free preventative stuff actually costs more because people will over-utilize it.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I would be interested in seeing the data on this.
Jan 18, 2018, 1:25 PM
|
|
You also have to look at it from a consumer aspect though.
When a large subsection of the population has their spending stifled by large medical bills/payments, it hurts the economy because that is money that could be spent on our consumer market which drives GDP
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Yes, but isn't it 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Jan 18, 2018, 2:07 PM
|
|
If you think having the government to step in to pay for it will mean it's more like 3/4 of one and a half dozen of the other because the government can use its power to lower costs, then I think you also have to deal with the problem of rationing. The more market based a system is, the closer the price of a good should be to what people actually value that good at. But what happens when the governments exerts control over the price to keep it artificially low?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I agree that dropping the price would lower the supply side
Jan 18, 2018, 2:12 PM
|
|
while at the same time increasing demand. That's econ 101.
However, can that be the end all of the argument when it comes to macro economics? A new equilibrium would be present, but the laws of supply and demand are only true if the ceteris puribus assumption holds. Which it wouldn't in this instance because consumer spending would increase meaning higher revenue in taxes which then should (should is a strong word) translate to more resources being made available for the healthcare of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
democrats-illegals come first***
Jan 18, 2018, 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
In fact, they'll risk a shutdown for illegals
Jan 18, 2018, 1:12 PM
|
|
But that'll never be the spin on the story in the media.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
It certainly seems like the wrong time for this fight.
Jan 18, 2018, 1:30 PM
|
|
DACA has nothing to do with a government funding bill.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Makes it harder for Republicans to work with them, I think
Jan 18, 2018, 2:08 PM
|
|
There should be a bipartisan solution to the DACA issue, because I don't think even a lot of immigration enforcement hard-liners want to see all of the people who were brought here as children have no path to citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
No, they're illegals, too
Jan 19, 2018, 1:49 PM
|
|
They were brought here illegally, not born here.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Oh come on...using the term "illegal" isn't dehumanizing...
Jan 19, 2018, 2:15 PM
[ in reply to Isn't DACA about the children of illegals? ] |
|
it's just blunt and accurate.
A person brought over the border illegally...is here illegally. Surely that's not up for debate, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Oh come on...using the term "illegal" isn't dehumanizing...
Jan 20, 2018, 12:59 PM
|
|
"Illegals" implies that the person did something illegal. A 3 year old can't do anything illegal, it's their parents who broke the law. Yet calling the child an "illegal" does have a negative connotation. The children are the victims, not the perpetrators.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5725
Joined: 12/27/05
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
thinks there are 60 repulican senators***
Jan 20, 2018, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Have you considered the following?...
Jan 18, 2018, 1:35 PM
|
|
Many republicans and/or conservative don't believe it to be the role of the federal government to be involved in health insurance. I am one of them. It isn't because I don't care about people...in fact it's because I DO care about people AND I care about the Constitution. I believe the federal government is involved in a lot of things it shouldn't be, with the net result being a negative for the country and its citizens and not a positive.
Your line of "thinking" is akin to folks who accuse Christians of being hypocrites because they don't support federally run health-insurance. As if Jesus somehow commanded that helping people through the federal government is the only way to help people and if you don't support that, then you don't like poor people.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
A lot of people take that stance of "it's the right thing to
Jan 18, 2018, 1:39 PM
|
|
do"
I look at it as it's the smart thing to do. We spend more per capita on health care in the united states than countries that have universal health care.
Not to mention how it would spur the economy even more.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
So do it on the state level...
Jan 18, 2018, 1:47 PM
|
|
and let each state define what will work best for them and/or if they even want it.
It's wrong to do it the federal level for many reasons.
Also, can you explain how federal universal insurance will spur economic growth?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Doing it on the state level would
Jan 18, 2018, 1:54 PM
|
|
not spread out the costs as much as 315 million people on the national level.
Yes. Healthy workers are more productive, take less sick days, and are less of a burden on the companies.
Also, if people can have regular procedures done (not plastic surgery ect) without a massive bill later, that puts more money in their budgets that they can then spend. Spurring the economy which is driven by consumerism.
Also, the biggest reason for bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Remove that pitfall.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
States can spread out the cost enough?....
Jan 18, 2018, 2:41 PM
|
|
First, I don't believe that to be true.
Second, I don't believe the Constitution grants the federal gov the power to take over the healthcare system and state population isn't a valid reason to think it does.
"Yes. Healthy workers are more productive, take less sick days, and are less of a burden on the companies."
That might be true, but is that the only driver with economic substance in this discussion? What about the massive increase in federal government spending and the tax increases that will come as a result? What about the potential for massive ADDITIONAL inefficiencies introduced into the health care system?
"Also, if people can have regular procedures done (not plastic surgery ect) without a massive bill later, that puts more money in their budgets that they can then spend. Spurring the economy which is driven by consumerism."
Again...you don't think there's going to be a "cost" to the tax payer for such a system?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I will gladly pay a little more in taxes
Jan 18, 2018, 2:44 PM
|
|
(again because cost is spread out) if it means Americans get universal healthcare.
Just like tbone will pay a little more in taxes to have a Big Beautiful Wall
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
A "little" more?....just curious...
Jan 18, 2018, 2:47 PM
|
|
what do you think universal health care would cost the federal government and what would the resulting tax burden be for you?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Are we going to get into accounting?
Jan 18, 2018, 2:52 PM
|
|
Because there are MULTIPLE places the funding can come from like our ridiculously massive military budget.
But to keep it simple, let's say it costs 100 billion dollars.
Let's say all 315 million people in the US pay an equal amount into it (which they won't). That's an average of $317.46 per person.
A lot of money right? Although that's about 10% of ONE catscan
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
And yes I will admit that's some bull #### numbers
Jan 18, 2018, 2:55 PM
|
|
mainly because taxes would go up of course. However, according to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY that has universal healthcare, you save money.
If it's 1000 dollars more per year in taxes, stay overnight in the hospital once in that year and you profit based on our healthcare system now.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, no, that's not true....
Jan 18, 2018, 3:04 PM
|
|
see my other post.
I think you're looking at medical spending per person being less in some countries with universal healthcare. That isn't directly the same as "saving money" as it's not an apples-to-applies comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, yeah. It's called understanding the subject...
Jan 18, 2018, 3:03 PM
[ in reply to Are we going to get into accounting? ] |
|
how can you support a universal health care run by the federal government, yet have no idea what it would cost or the impact on you personally?
Most projections range between $2.5TT and $3.0TT per year. Estimated federal revenue/income for 2017 is $3.46TT. So yeah, you have to get into "accounting" in this conversation.
The cost is HUGE. AND we're running huge deficits already.
But just as an exercise, when you do you taxes this year, look and see how much in federal income taxes you pay. That would need to roughly double to cover a single-payer plan.
I don't know about you, but I pay a heck of a lot more in federal income taxes than I do for health insurance right now!!
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
That argument would be valid if the plan was to
Jan 18, 2018, 3:04 PM
|
|
pull ALL funding for UH from NEW taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Then where are you going to "pull it from"....
Jan 18, 2018, 3:07 PM
|
|
keeping in mind in 2017 we ran an est budget deficit of $577BB.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
What does the constitution say about the
Jan 18, 2018, 1:56 PM
|
|
federal government providing social security?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Nothing, I think. That's why I asked.***
Jan 18, 2018, 2:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
You can also make the argument about fire departments
Jan 18, 2018, 2:05 PM
|
|
who use to be private businesses until they started making people bid for their services before putting out the fire.
The founding fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in a lot of areas because they knew it would have to change with the times. Which it does. Very well.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Nothing on both points and I believe both medicare and SS...
Jan 18, 2018, 2:43 PM
[ in reply to What does the constitution say about the ] |
|
should not be federal programs. I also believe they're broken systems as evidenced by what's coming in the next 10-20 yrs.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
SS and medicare should work itself out in the next 20 or so
Jan 18, 2018, 2:45 PM
|
|
years once the baby boomers die off.
But that's a whole other argument.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
wait, what?...
Jan 18, 2018, 2:54 PM
|
|
I believe you might have some bad information.
The SS fund starts bring in less money that paying out in 2022 and the fund is projected to run out of money in 2034. After that, income will only pay about 75% of benefits.
Medicare is actually in worse shape.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
The largest problem overall is we have a massive
Jan 18, 2018, 2:58 PM
|
|
section of our population that is retiring. More than what is putting into SS.
Once that generation dies out, the ship will eventually reverse. We will then have smaller generations pulling from SS than what is putting in.
Is it enough to completely right the ship? I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37199
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, I'll agree with you on one point....
Jan 18, 2018, 3:05 PM
|
|
"I have no idea"
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Right, there's a missing link in there
Jan 18, 2018, 2:13 PM
[ in reply to Have you considered the following?... ] |
|
Maybe another worry is that doing things like this may turn the government basically into a glorified health care provider because of the potential for costs going up and up.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I can't see what you posted***
Jan 18, 2018, 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Using examples of... well... every other first world
Jan 18, 2018, 2:29 PM
[ in reply to Right, there's a missing link in there ] |
|
country that provides universal health care, it shows that that is not necessarily the case (with few exceptions of course).
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'd say it actually shows that it is the case***
Jan 18, 2018, 2:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Costs would go up... after they dropped dramatically
Jan 18, 2018, 2:34 PM
|
|
One can make the counter argument that costs would initially go way down. Way way down because the government would have the leverage to bring prices down to at cost or lower (better than major insurance companies can do now). So a 10 percent increase over 20 years after a 50% drop in cost is still saving 40%.
Edit: Down to cost is a bad example. But cut down on the higher profit margin because these medical companies would be selling more volume.
Message was edited by: FBCoachSC®
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Right, there's a missing link in there
Jan 18, 2018, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Right, there's a missing link in there ] |
|
In my view, the problem isn't only the cost of Health Insurance. The ovewhelming elephant in the room that no one talks about is the cost of the provision of health services.
For example, a friend of mine recently had a baby. His wife was in the hospital overnight, it was a normal delivery of a healthy little boy. The bill was $56,000.
Why was it $56,000? Because there is no competition in healthcare. They can and do whatever they want and they make billions doing it.
The Healthcare industry is the only major sector of our economy that doesn't operate within a free market framework. You don't know the prices so you can't shop around so there is no competition.
It's clearly, in my view, an anti-trust issue that needs to be addressed.
That'll be $.02.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
That seems about right to me
Jan 18, 2018, 4:19 PM
|
|
I just don't think we're going to get better prices by making the system less market-responsive. All we'd end up doing is further obfuscating how much is actually being paid, either by insurance (right now) or by the government (also right now, but to a lesser extent than under a UBH regime).
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
but would the rules of economics really work with healthcare
Jan 18, 2018, 4:56 PM
|
|
I don't think people think about their healthcare like other "products" or commodities. So how much of the theories and rules of economics would be able to be applied?
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: That seems about right to me
Jan 20, 2018, 1:02 PM
[ in reply to That seems about right to me ] |
|
I agree with that. The Health Care industry doesn't want more market-responsiveness. So far in our history they've been able to co-opt the government to make sure they don't.
They are the prime example of how money dictates public policy that disfavors the electorate.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 73
| visibility 1
|
|
|