Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.

The job of the Biden campaign is simple, and Trump is helping.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?

Posted by Ponderer 
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 06:57PM
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 07:49PM
A salutary lesson in the "economics." of American healthcare and insurance coverage.

[www.pressreader.com]
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 08:04PM
Quote
Ponderer
"You are only concerned about cost." -OD

Here's a helpful little tip, Olde Dude. When you start out a post directed at me with a ridiculous, bald-faced lie about me right out of the gate, I usually don't even read any farther than that.

In OD's defense, is it really out of line to suggest you are concerned with cost when you include in the title of this thread the phrase "paying more for less"? Not to mention your past posts that have been about the affordability (and lack thereof) of health care.




"White power! White power!" --Demented Racist Donald Trump


Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 08:12PM
He didn't just say I was concerned about it, Curt. He said I was only concerned with it. Uh... derrrr.

Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 08:14PM
You need to read more carefully, Curt. Of course almost EVERYONE is concerned with cost. Od's charge that Ponderer is ONLY concerned about cost is just more of the kind of classic distortion I frequently see from od and others here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2019 08:19PM by Donna.
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 08:20PM
Broadening and improving coverage - making it better - has always been an essential portion of my argument and I have always bee concerned with it.

Simply covering everything, as I have always been concerned with along with Bernie, is a vast improvement and far better than just covering some things for certain portions of the population after accounting for annual financial status of people residing within zip codes containing blah blah blah blah blah blah ad infinitum. Derrr!

Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 10:46PM
Ponderer,
So what percent of your wanting M4A is about cost: 90%, 95% 99% if not only about cost? Nobody, including Bernie, is claiming that M4A or any single-payer system would reduce wait times to see a doctor, to see a specialist, for emergency care, etc. Or that it would deliver more extravagant services than currently available with private insurance. If Bernie, Warren or any candidate has made an case for that wasn't about cost, I'd like to hear it.




"White power! White power!" --Demented Racist Donald Trump


Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 10:52PM
I'd say somewhere between 44.9 and 58.7 percent.

That's about as far as I'll indulge your attempt to change the subject.

Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 15, 2019 11:22PM
Ponderer,
I think M4A is a laudable goal. I just don't believe it's achievable. The reason single-payer was achieved in other countries, is because businesses were not given a tax break for offering health insurance to their employees as we do here in the US. Thus foreign countries didn't have an entrenched, established health insurance industry as we do here.

As you pointed out, even the very blue state of California was stymied in their efforts to achieve M4A. A third of the US Senate seats are up for grabs. The odds are strong that the GOP will control the Senate. Obamacare squeaked through the Senate with 60 votes. I don't see how it's realistic that Sanders or anybody can get 60 votes in the Senate for an M4A plan. That's why I think my plan to allow the states waivers to do whatever they want (assuming federal permission is required) is the only practical way to go.

I am skeptical that 50% or so of your reasons for wanting M4A are other than cost. I won't embarrass you by asking what those other reasons are.




"White power! White power!" --Demented Racist Donald Trump


Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 12:47AM
I doubt if that tax break fully covers their outlay for subsidizing their employees' health care coverage.

Actually those "other reasons" you're imagining (if it's what I think you're referring to) are all in your head. She and I haven't even discussed that.
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 01:30AM
Quote
Donna
I doubt if that tax break fully covers their outlay for subsidizing their employees' health care coverage.

Actually those "other reasons" you're imagining (if it's what I think you're referring to) are all in your head. She and I haven't even discussed that.

Frankly, I don't think you have any other reasons. Cost is your reason for wanting M4A. I don't know why you are taking such umbrage at the suggestion that it is your only reason. But go ahead, shock me with the other reason that you have for wanting M4A.

As for your other point, the tax breaks don't have to fully cover it. As I said, the fact that employer-sponsored health insurance and the health insurance industry are well established here, makes a move to government-run health care system very difficult. Here is an instructive history.

Quote
The Real Reason the U.S. Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization.

This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers.

Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance.

Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.

After World War II, Europe was devastated. As countries began to regroup and decide how they might provide health care to their citizens, often government was the only entity capable of doing so, with businesses and economies in ruin. The United States was in a completely different situation. Its economy was booming, and industry was more than happy to provide health care.

This didn’t stop President Truman from considering and promoting a national health care system in 1945. This idea had a fair amount of public support, but business, in the form of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed it. So did the American Hospital Association and American Medical Association. Even many unions did, having spent so much political capital fighting for insurance benefits for their members. Confronted by such opposition from all sides, national health insurance failed — for not the first or last time.

In 1940, about 9 percent of Americans had some form of health insurance. By 1950, more than 50 percent did. By 1960, more than two-thirds did.

There are other countries with private insurance systems, but none that rely so heavily on employer-sponsored insurance.
[www.nytimes.com]




"White power! White power!" --Demented Racist Donald Trump


Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 01:55AM
I wouldn't be interested in M4A if it there was little or no out-of-pocket expenses but the docs were second-rate, the medical facilities were filthy dirty, and the waiting times were unacceptable, which is what od fears would happen under M4A and which btw is why he made that comment about Ponderer only being interested in cost.
Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 02:17AM
Quote
Donna
I wouldn't be interested in M4A if it there was little or no out-of-pocket expenses but the docs were second-rate, the medical facilities were filthy dirty, and the waiting times were unacceptable, which is what od fears would happen under M4A and which btw is why he made that comment about Ponderer only being interested in cost.

It's not fair to say only second rate doctors would work within the M4A system, but many doctors would opt out. So there would be a reduced choice and availability of doctors. Maybe significant, maybe not. Not all doctors take Medicare patients now; psychiatrists in particular won't. And of those doctors who do, they will only see a certain percent of Medicare patients.

Simultaneously and retroactively, something has to be done about the high cost of educating a doctor; all of my doctor friends had huge school bills which took them years to pay back.

As for wait times, it's almost inevitable they would be worse. The VA system, and the health care in other countries provide a glimpse of what M4A is likely to bring. Personally, I think it would be worth the wait, but not everybody would agree.




"White power! White power!" --Demented Racist Donald Trump


Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 06:20PM
"I think M4A is a laudable goal. I just don't believe it's achievable." -Curt

So what?

So let's just try to get half of what we think we can get and if we're lucky we'll get half of that and be satisfied? Just give up and give in to our Corporate Overlords before any feathers get ruffled or there is any shudder experienced in the Sacred Status Quo? Let's just surrender before even declaring war?

Dear God Americans have become a terrified flock of pants-pissing chickens if you're any example, Curt.


"Frankly, I don't think you have any other reasons. Cost is your reason for wanting M4A." -Curt\

*face palm*

Frankly, even if there were no other reasons but cost for enacting M4A, I would still be 100% in favor of it. However...

Reasons other than cost for having Medicare For All?

• It would cover EVERYBODY.
• It would eliminate the psychotic, convoluted, irrelevant middleman process the insurance industry lives for.
• It would cover all basic healthcare, including dental, hearing, eye glasses, and other things not always covered..
• It would cover EVERYBODY. No one would be excluded.
• It would save lives. Fewer people would die from preventable diseases for lack of access to healthcare.
• It would help and free up businesses and employers from having to deal with employee healthcare at all.
• It would be an absolute boon to the economy. People would have more money to spend.
• It would eliminate bankruptcies caused by medical expenses.
• It would simplify doctors' lives and hospitals' workforce.
• It would simplify everyone's lives and eliminate a major stress factor for the population.
• It would cover EVERYBODY. No one would be excluded. EVERYONE WOULD BE COVERED.
• It would be automatic to have and impossible to lose
• It would eliminate at least one stranglehold the Oligarchy has us in.

Re: Why do people want to have the choice of paying more for less?
September 16, 2019 06:31PM
Because government is this involved is PRECISELY why we pay more for less.

#walkaway

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!