Free Health Care For All...

[Cow Poke]

I've always found it interesting how some of the things that insurance never covered like Lasik surgery have been steadily and substantially dropping in price. When it started it was up around $1000/eye and now I see it advertised for between $200-300/eye.

Yeah, THAT!!!!! And it's the big REPUTABLE companies that are dropping the price, not just LasikRUs! I paid nearly $3,000 for my surgery about 12 years ago. Now they're advertising $400.

[One Bad Pig]

I've always found it interesting how some of the things that insurance never covered like Lasik surgery have been steadily and substantially dropping in price. When it started it was up around $1000/eye and now I see it advertised for between $200-300/eye.

It's different when you're paying with other peoples' money.

[Mountain Man]

It's different when you're paying with other peoples' money.

And the big problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

[Cow Poke]

And the big problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

The "other people" from whom this money comes wise up and use accounts and/or lawyers to adjust their 'money' so it's less available.

Remember what happened when they did that "luxury tax" on yachts?

Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.

People don't get rich by being stupid.

[Mountain Man]

The old fallacy that people won't change their behavior in response to government policy. My favorite example was when the state of New York raised taxes on the "rich" in order to close a hole in the budget, and so the following year, a critical mass of "rich" people moved, and the budget hole ended up even bigger than before.

[Catholicity]

Part of the problem is that healthcare is seen as a commodity, and a consumer driven market. It's something that instead of being viewed as a necessity (which it really is a necessity) In the US we have decided to capitalize on and make the most money out of possible. Fundamentally, that is wrong. Granted I get you need a job and you need to make money, But fundamentally the capitalization on diseases is not good.

[seer]

Part of the problem is that healthcare is seen as a commodity, and a consumer driven market. It's something that instead of being viewed as a necessity (which it really is a necessity) In the US we have decided to capitalize on and make the most money out of possible. Fundamentally, that is wrong. Granted I get you need a job and you need to make money, But fundamentally the capitalization on diseases is not good.

Well food is a necessity and that is seen as a commodity. You could live a lot longer without health care than food.

[Cow Poke]

The problem with me paying for somebody the healthcare of somebody else is that I have no control over their lifestyle choices.

If somebody knows they can overeat, drink, smoke, and other things detrimental to their health, it doesn't cost them any extra for the additional and advanced care they will need.

IF, on the other hand, they were paying for their own healthcare, they would at least have the option of making wiser choices.

[rogue06]

The problem with me paying for somebody the healthcare of somebody else is that I have no control over their lifestyle choices.

If somebody knows they can overeat, drink, smoke, and other things detrimental to their health, it doesn't cost them any extra for the additional and advanced care they will need.

IF, on the other hand, they were paying for their own healthcare, they would at least have the option of making wiser choices.

That has always been a major concern about government run health care -- that Big Brother will gain even more control over how you live.

[Cow Poke]

That has always been a major concern about government run health care -- that Big Brother will gain even more control over how you live.

My wife's job provides our health insurance, and they have incentive programs for living better. I don't mind that at all - It's entirely up to us if we want to participate in the program and reap the benefits of - lower premiums AND cash awards for certain milestones!

[carpedm9587]

How about instead of figuring out who is going to pay these massive healthcare bills, we figure out how to make healthcare cost less so that poor people can afford it?

How about instead of figuring out who is going to pay these massive healthcare bills, we figure out how to make healthcare cost less so that poor people can afford it?

Depends on the poor person. Some cannot even afford to pay for food, shelter and clothing. Adding healthcare, at any cost, is simply a non-starter. We will always need safety nets for those truly in need.

However, I do believe healthcare insurance should be socialized. When I look at the countries that have done it, their satisfaction levels with their healthcare are way beyond ours, and their costs a fraction. It's a function of "buying in bulk." This is, I believe, the great disconnect with the argument about healthcare. It's not the healthcare that is being socialized - it's the insurance model. When a company becomes large enough, it realizes savings by purchasing a catastrophic coverage plan for a fraction of the cost it would pay for conventional premiums, and then self-insuring for the rest. If a company of 100 can realize those savings, imagine what we could save if we applied that model to 335M people. Since this is a country where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," a single payer system is nothing more than the largest possible "self-insurance" program, with the profit motive removed.

What we have now is a mess. Before the ACA, my premiums climbed about 10% per year. Once the ACA was enacted, my premiums climbed an average of 8%. Since Trump took office, they have climbed over 20% per year and I just got notice it will happen again next year. Apparently, the uncertainty Trump created in the market, coupled with the provisions of the tax bill, are negatively impacting premiums. Of course, that's Vermont and Vermont is just one state. And it's BC/BS and BC/BS is just one provider. But it's gotten seriously ugly. I would be able to retire this year if it were not for the fact that I have to make over $25K per year just to cover premiums and the HSA contribution.

I could see my taxes increase by $20K and still be ahead of the game...

[Catholicity]

Well food is a necessity and that is seen as a commodity. You could live a lot longer without health care than food.

This is true. However, you can grow your own food to supplement what you cannot purchase from others. Also Food is not capitalized on the way healthcare is. Again I recognize supply and demand. But bear this in mind, When Jonas Salk developed the Polio Vaccine he refused to patent it so that it would be available for others at a low cost. Remember the HIV drug that spiked 5000 percent? I think it was Daraprim. It went from 1 dollar a pill to 750 a pill. So there is something severely wrong with this scenario. That's my point. Also you have the insane hike of the Epi Pens. That's The absurd profit margins.....something is wrong with this scenario. I'm not against Making money, I'm against price gouging.

[Sparko]

Depends on the poor person. Some cannot even afford to pay for food, shelter and clothing. Adding healthcare, at any cost, is simply a non-starter. We will always need safety nets for those truly in need.

and we have them. Hospitals have to give care to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. At least emergency care. And there are a lot of free clinics for other than emergency needs.

However, I do believe healthcare insurance should be socialized. When I look at the countries that have done it, their satisfaction levels with their healthcare are way beyond ours, and their costs a fraction. It's a function of "buying in bulk." This is, I believe, the great disconnect with the argument about healthcare. It's not the healthcare that is being socialized - it's the insurance model. When a company becomes large enough, it realizes savings by purchasing a catastrophic coverage plan for a fraction of the cost it would pay for conventional premiums, and then self-insuring for the rest. If a company of 100 can realize those savings, imagine what we could save if we applied that model to 335M people. Since this is a country where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," a single payer system is nothing more than the largest possible "self-insurance" program, with the profit motive removed.

What we have now is a mess. Before the ACA, my premiums climbed about 10% per year. Once the ACA was enacted, my premiums climbed an average of 8%. Since Trump took office, they have climbed over 20% per year and I just got notice it will happen again next year. Apparently, the uncertainty Trump created in the market, coupled with the provisions of the tax bill, are negatively impacting premiums. Of course, that's Vermont and Vermont is just one state. And it's BC/BS and BC/BS is just one provider. But it's gotten seriously ugly. I would be able to retire this year if it were not for the fact that I have to make over $25K per year just to cover premiums and the HSA contribution.

I could see my taxes increase by $20K and still be ahead of the game...

At this point, after reading both sides for years now, I would support socialized medicine, IF it were done correctly and the level of service did not deteriorate (poor care, long waits, etc)

[Cow Poke]

At this point, after reading both sides for years now, I would support socialized medicine, IF it were done correctly and the level of service did not deteriorate (poor care, long waits, etc)

But how could it not deteriorate? With medical staff having to spend more and more of their time on paperwork - compliance and such - and the hopes of ever making enough money to offset their college debt.... who, in their right mind, would want to be a doctor?

[Sparko]

But how could it not deteriorate? With medical staff having to spend more and more of their time on paperwork - compliance and such - and the hopes of ever making enough money to offset their college debt.... who, in their right mind, would want to be a doctor?

Well apparently these other countries have doctors. Although I read that there is a doctor shortage in New Zealand.

Despite that they are paying some doctors NZ$400,0000 a year!