Public Health Care

[Psychic Missile]

So the poor people for whom you aren't buying Volvos, are their lives just not worth it?

And this isn't a matter of poor people's lives being less valuable, rather, it is about using the poor (not actually caring for them) to justify ridiculous government programs that do more for the oligarchs than they do for the poor. No one here wants poor people to go without healthcare, what we don't want to do is pay $100.00 more in taxes so that $2.00 of it can go to help the poor (stuffing them in sub par VA hospitals and letting them die anyways) while $98.00 goes to line a politicians pocket.

Real Life Example:
I knew a lady in real life who applied for Social Security. She wasn't a fraud, she had all the requisite doctor's paperwork and so forth. It took her three years to get onto Social Security - the poor gal had to beg, borrow, and quite nearly steal to live that long without a job. When she finally got the green light a large portion of her benefits (back pay) went to cover lawyer fees (oh look, there are the rich getting richer) and then the IRS swooped down and took another huge chunk because they'd decided taxes filed 6 years earlier by her deadbeat husband (in jail for molesting children) where bad (1). In short, she died having never received even the tiniest portion due her. That there is a corrupt, vile, evil system enriching the rich all the while piggy backing on the desperately poor.

If you wonder why I don't want my health care turned over to the government look at my friend Holly.
I don't want to spend thousands on lawyers, fighting with faceless bureaucrats for YEARS to get what was promised.
I've seen first hand how the government treats the poor - it is criminal.

The problem is that you are naysaying an idea that works for plenty of other countries because of the worst case scenario. For every story like yours, there are 100000+ concerning privatized healthcare.

[Meh Gerbil]

The problem is that you are naysaying an idea that works for plenty of other countries because of the worst case scenario. For every story like yours, there are 100000+ concerning privatized healthcare.

If that is the case then let's find a solution that works instead of trading a non-working solution for an even bigger non-working solution.

If you want to compare the USA with other countries then let's do that:
1: My private health care: $5K per person.
2: Leonhard claims per person in Denmark: $4K per person
3: California's new plan: $10K per person

I have really good health care that will cover me into retirement for both my wife and myself. Why is it that my insurance company can do that for $5K per person and Denmark can offer healthcare for $4K per person but when California bureaucrats get their feces covered mitts on it suddenly the price is $10K per person? Your biggest hurdle in the healthcare battle isn't conservatives, it is the politicians in both parties who see this as a personal Cash, Cocaine, and Call Girls slush fund for them and their buddies. Address that corruption first, along with the VA Hospitals (that CCCs never give an answer for) and the stolen Social Security Funds (that CCC party never gives an answer for) - fix those and I'm sure single payer will become much more attractive.

[Meh Gerbil]

Let's do this to move the conversation along:

Let's assume Leonhard's number is too low since it doesn't seem to allow for fat old white guys to get rich.
Let's go with my number of $5K per person because that number allows for the evil insurance companies to get really rich.

There is a $1K per person grift build into my insurance plan, which when extended to 350 million people puts the total grift at $350,000,000.00 per year.

Now since we know an insurance company can make a profit at about $5K per person why don't the liberals on the forum answer the question: How much more grift needs to be built into the system for the politicians and their friends? My plan already has 1/3 of a trillion dollars already built into it - how much extra do we need for the oligarchs? California has suggested a grift of $1,750,000,000,000.00 per year for politicians and their wives - that is almost two trillion dollars. Is that enough? Is it too much?

Would the liberals on this forum be willing to meet me at about half way and allow $2K of grift per person ($700,000,000,000.00 per year) or is that not enough cash for the oligarchs?

How much above a private insurance company does the public have to pay in order to cover the cost of your political party's Cash, Cocaine, and Call Girls?

[Starlight]

If you want to compare the USA with other countries then let's do that:
1: My private health care: $5K per person.

Is it really though? Does your employer pay a contribution in addition to your own payment? Is the government paying a subsidy behind the scenes in addition to your own payment? Do you pay various 'copays' and 'deductables' etc throughout the year when you actually get the healthcare?

2: Leonhard claims per person in Denmark: $4K per person

Seems likely right. The study I linked in an earlier post found per person costs ranging from $3.2K USD per person (in New Zealand) to $5.6K USD per person (in Switzerland) across 10 OECD nations. While the US was at $8.5K per person on average.

3: California's new plan: $10K per person

I'm skeptical of that. I seriously doubt it would really cost that much. Who made up that number and based on what? Similar systems elsewhere in the world are all in the $3.2K to $5.6K USD per year range. The claim that California implementing the same system as other OECD nations would cost 2-3 times as much per person as every single one of those other nations pays, seems like an absurd claim at face value. The cost is going to fall somewhere within the existing range.

Address that corruption first

I agree that is the single biggest issue in US politics. My country is often cited as the least corrupt country on earth, and what I see going on in US politics horrifies me, particularly the Republican party. Why are the citizens not marching in the streets or literally lynching their corrupt politicians? What are you doing to address that corruption? I am supporting a constitutional amendment to get money out of US politics. I also support the party that 100% votes for such amendments (i.e. Democrats) instead of the party that 100% votes against such amendments (i.e. Republicans). And am against the party that appoints Supreme Court justices who vote to allow more corruption (i.e. all five Republican justices in Citizens United and McCutcheon, and most recently Neil Gorsuch tried to remove remaining corruption restrictions). And strongly support publicly funded elections.

But I'm guessing you tend to vote for the party of more corruption, i.e. the Republicans.

Here's Republican ex-Speaker of the House John Boehner explaining that he feels a bit bad in retrospect about the fact that just before a vote on tobacco regulations he handed out checks from the tobacco companies to Republican congressmen on the floor of the House. He feels it was unprofessional to do it so brazenly and says he'll do it behind closed doors in future:

along with the VA Hospitals

From what I can tell, the VA system has been deliberately sabotaged by the Republicans to try to make sure 'government run healthcare' looks like it doesn't work. They've put laws in place that ban the VA from upgrading from paper systems to computer systems, etc, to make sure that the VA system sucks. Meanwhile, the Republicans spend their time pretending as hard as possible that they're they party who cares about veterans.

the stolen Social Security Funds

I seem to recall explaining to you, in detail, that this is an entirely false thing.

[Meh Gerbil]

Is it really though? Does your employer pay a contribution in addition to your own payment? Is the government paying a subsidy behind the scenes in addition to your own payment? Do you pay various 'copays' and 'deductables' etc throughout the year when you actually get the healthcare?

1. I don't pay any additional funds.
2. I pay minimal deductibles.
3. I was working off old information: My employer contributes closer to 6K per person per year.

Seems likely right. The study I linked in an earlier post found per person costs ranging from $3.2K USD per person (in New Zealand) to $5.6K USD per person (in Switzerland) across 10 OECD nations. While the US was at $8.5K per person on average.

Okay, given that your governments are able to negotiate this thing to something reasonable I can see why you would be for this type of healthcare plan. Given that the USA cannot seem to find a way to do it for less than 3X your government's costs can you see why we're a bit skeptical over here?

I'm skeptical of that. I seriously doubt it would really cost that much. Who made up that number and based on what? Similar systems elsewhere in the world are all in the $3.2K to $5.6K USD per year range. The claim that California implementing the same system as other OECD nations would cost 2-3 times as much per person as every single one of those other nations pays, seems like an absurd claim at face value. The cost is going to fall somewhere within the existing range.

This is based on the State of California's own research:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
That should give you a clue as to how absolutely corrupt the State of California is right now.

But I'm guessing you tend to vote for the party of more corruption, i.e. the Republicans.

I think it is funny that you actually believe we have more than one party.
And no, I don't vote for any of them anymore - I'm not going to waste my time.

Here's Republican ex-Speaker of the House John Boehner explaining that he feels a bit bad in retrospect about the fact that just before a vote on tobacco regulations he handed out checks from the tobacco companies to Republican congressmen on the floor of the House. He feels it was unprofessional to do it so brazenly and says he'll do it behind closed doors in future.

I wouldn't want him acting unprofessional.

From what I can tell, the VA system has been deliberately sabotaged by the Republicans to try to make sure 'government run healthcare' looks like it doesn't work. They've put laws in place that ban the VA from upgrading from paper systems to computer systems, etc, to make sure that the VA system sucks. Meanwhile, the Republicans spend their time pretending as hard as possible that they're they party who cares about veterans.

The funny thing about you partisans is that while in the process of making what you think is a killer point you actually shoot yourself in the foot.
Here is my take away: I don't want to be part of a health care system that can be targeted by partisans for their own enrichment.
You're asking my health care to be managed by people who target it to make political bank.
Really?

I seem to recall explaining to you, in detail, that this is an entirely false thing.

You explained that the Social Security money was loaned by the government to itself.
What that doesn't change is the fact that the money has been spent (which was my claim) and in its place we've a stack of I.O.Us which are guaranteed by the taxpayer.

It wasn't put in savings.
It was all spent.

[Starlight]

Okay, given that your governments are able to negotiate this thing to something reasonable I can see why you would be for this type of healthcare plan.

Obviously. To me it's like you asking if the government should be in the business of pumping water to people's houses, or whether everyone should walk to the well themselves to fetch water. I'm like: The government's been running the healthcare here for the past 76 years and it's uniformly viewed as one of the basic functions of government. When I tell people here that the US government doesn't provide healthcare, people's response is "that can't be right, the US isn't a 3rd world country."

Given that the USA cannot seem to find a way to do it for less than 3X your government's costs can you see why we're a bit skeptical over here?

The numbers you're citing are random estimates made by some dude. You've got basically zero evidence that the USA can't do what most of the rest of the OECD nations do for the same price range.

This is based on the State of California's own research:

Okay. I think their numbers are likely a factor of 2x too high, given that similar systems elsewhere in the world simply don't cost that much. Your link basically says the report said "we're not quite sure how this will work exactly", so their estimated costings of it are probably equally dubious.

I think it is funny that you actually believe we have more than one party.

I think that generally in the US there is a vast vast difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I would say that on average most Democrat politicians are about 50% well-intentioned and wanting to do what's best for the people of their country and 50% sold-out to various corporate interests. I would say on average most Republican politicians are 95% sold-out to corporate interests and 5% interested in doing what's best for the people of their country, and they've been using the "look abortion!" line to distract attention from the fact that the emperor has no clothes while they sociopathically cripple the government from the inside out worse than any wannabe terrorist ever could in order to funnel as much money as possible to their corporate overloads and stop the government policing corporate crime in order to let the corporations and the mega-rich donors run rampant over the people. I think the single most telling difference is that anti-corruption laws are always votes straight down party lines, with every single Democrat voting to limit corruption and every single Republican voting to increase it - that happens over and over again and tells you all you really need to know about who is causing the problems of corruption in the system.

Here is my take away: I don't want to be part of a health care system that can be targeted by partisans for their own enrichment.

Do you also not want to get water pumped to your house because the government can do shady and corrupt deals with private companies to provide it? Do you also not want there to be a police force protecting you because the government can do corrupt and shady things to make those police a privatized militia or make them into death squads or give them instructions about who to shake down and who to leave alone? While there is a certain point (e.g. crazed African dictators) where the government police becomes a very bad thing, in general you do want the government to be providing services to its citizens like water, police, healthcare etc. So while I agree your point is theoretically valid that a truly terrible government will do everything bad, and thus the pretty disastrous situation of "Wild West-esque no government/minimal government" is slightly preferable to the disastrous situation of "crazy African dictator", that's not the optimal part of the societal continuum to be on in the first place and you shouldn't be trying to optimize the best of terrible choices which is what you seem to be trying to do.

You should instead approach the situation with a view like "all the countries that have lowest crime, have government run police forces, thus we should have a government run police force and make sure it does its job properly and isn't absurdly corrupt. Having no police force is not a useful alternative." The same applies to healthcare.

It was all spent.

~sigh~ There's no ignorance like willful ignorance.

[Sparko]

And the other major international analysis was the Commonwealth Report on healthcare in 11 OECD nations:

the U.S. ranks last [in 2014], as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of [this report]

So their 2014 report isn't really much different to their previous ones in terms of rankings:



I'll note that NZ and the UK are both spending the least and have very very similarly structured single-payer systems, and currently in both countries a significant portion of the electorate thinks the government is currently not spending enough and should increase healthcare spending.

well according to this ranking, New Zealand is 41 and the USA is 37.
37 USA
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian...ealth-systems/



You can find any statistics you want if you google long enough.

[Sparko]

Let's do this to move the conversation along:

Let's assume Leonhard's number is too low since it doesn't seem to allow for fat old white guys to get rich.
Let's go with my number of $5K per person because that number allows for the evil insurance companies to get really rich.

There is a $1K per person grift build into my insurance plan, which when extended to 350 million people puts the total grift at $350,000,000.00 per year.

Now since we know an insurance company can make a profit at about $5K per person why don't the liberals on the forum answer the question: How much more grift needs to be built into the system for the politicians and their friends? My plan already has 1/3 of a trillion dollars already built into it - how much extra do we need for the oligarchs? California has suggested a grift of $1,750,000,000,000.00 per year for politicians and their wives - that is almost two trillion dollars. Is that enough? Is it too much?

Would the liberals on this forum be willing to meet me at about half way and allow $2K of grift per person ($700,000,000,000.00 per year) or is that not enough cash for the oligarchs?

How much above a private insurance company does the public have to pay in order to cover the cost of your political party's Cash, Cocaine, and Call Girls?

I think that is the difference. Your insurance doesn't cover call girls and drug addicts and homeless liberals living under the bridge. But if we go to a government run healthcare, they would have to cover those people too. Who are very high maintenance. So the cost per person is higher. Your insurance company gets rich because it insures relatively healthy working class people. They cover the cost of the old and sick among them by taking premiums from the young and healthy who don't need healthcare. But once you start dumping in millions of high risk drug addicts and call girls into the mix, the profits go down.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think that is the difference. Your insurance doesn't cover call girls and drug addicts and homeless liberals living under the bridge. But if we go to a government run healthcare, they would have to cover those people too. Who are very high maintenance. So the cost per person is higher. Your insurance company gets rich because it insures relatively healthy working class people. They cover the cost of the old and sick among them by taking premiums from the young and healthy who don't need healthcare. But once you start dumping in millions of high risk drug addicts and call girls into the mix, the profits go down.

My healthcare follows to us into retirement - so those costs include the current retiree base.
Granted, that package isn't available for new employees because the costs have skyrocketed, but yeah, for decades this was the case.

[Meh Gerbil]

Obviously. To me it's like you asking if the government should be in the business of pumping water to people's houses, or whether everyone should walk to the well themselves to fetch water. I'm like: The government's been running the healthcare here for the past 76 years and it's uniformly viewed as one of the basic functions of government. When I tell people here that the US government doesn't provide healthcare, people's response is "that can't be right, the US isn't a 3rd world country."

I live within 60 miles of Flint, MI.

The numbers you're citing are random estimates made by some dude. You've got basically zero evidence that the USA can't do what most of the rest of the OECD nations do for the same price range.

1. So a study that you don't like is discarded as 'random numbers by some dude'. Check.
2. The State of California seems to be taking them seriously.

Okay. I think their numbers are likely a factor of 2x too high, given that similar systems elsewhere in the world simply don't cost that much. Your link basically says the report said "we're not quite sure how this will work exactly", so their estimated costings of it are probably equally dubious.

I'm not going to take your word for it since your estimate here seems to be 'random numbers by some dude'.

I think that generally in the US there is a vast vast difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I would say that on average most Democrat politicians are about 50% well-intentioned and wanting to do what's best for the people of their country and 50% sold-out to various corporate interests. I would say on average most Republican politicians are 95% sold-out to corporate interests and 5% interested in doing what's best for the people of their country.

Are these more random numbers by some dude?

Do you also not want to get water pumped to your house because the government can do shady and corrupt deals with private companies to provide it?

Flint, MI.

Do you also not want there to be a police force protecting you?

Ask the Black Lives Matter people how that is working out for them.

~sigh~ There's no ignorance like willful ignorance.

Why don't you loan me money, I'll loan it to myself and give myself an I.O.U and then tell you that I invested it.
In fact, your money is safe because I'll pay you back with any future cash you give me.

It is called a Ponzi Scheme - it is a well known scam.

[Sparko]

My healthcare follows to us into retirement - so those costs include the current retiree base.
Granted, that package isn't available for new employees because the costs have skyrocketed, but yeah, for decades this was the case.

so you are saying that if you become a drug-addled homeless call girl after you retire, you are still covered.

[Meh Gerbil]

so you are saying that if you become a drug-addled homeless call girl after you retire, you are still covered.

Yes, and I'm really looking forward to retirement.