Dragonlady
Member
- Location
- Vancouver, Wa.
Sadly, you are probably right. There's something very wrong with people/companies profiting off other people's misery and death
The one guy, who stands up and disagrees........
- Thread starter fuzzybuddy
- Start date
dpwspringer
Member
- Location
- Georgia
I think you are on to something. I'm all for regulated capitalism mixed in with enough socialism to maintain a civilized and caring society, which is what most of us in this country support. But for some reason huge corporations seem to be able to act as elitists were they don't have to care a dang thing about maintaining a civilized and caring society and are allowed to act like pure capitalists, which can be a pretty ugly thing. How often do you hear on the news something along the effect that this company or that company "only has to care about profits and answering to stockholders" as if that excuses whatever crap they got caught doing? Isn't that a double standard that is exemplified in our current health care industry whose biggest issue seems to be greed related?
Last edited:
The term "Obamacare" was originated by the Republicans as a snide reference to his health care plan. Brilliantly, he appropriated the term and used it as a badge of honor.
But Helen may have a point. For those who are determined to hate Obama, for whatever reason, attaching his name to a health care plan may have caused more grief than necessary. "The ACA" has a much more neutral quality. After all, how many people would love a bill that had Trump's name attached to it? Very few, I suspect.
But Helen may have a point. For those who are determined to hate Obama, for whatever reason, attaching his name to a health care plan may have caused more grief than necessary. "The ACA" has a much more neutral quality. After all, how many people would love a bill that had Trump's name attached to it? Very few, I suspect.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
Absolutely!
Knight
Well-known Member
Have you thought about what the elimination of profit would do? Health care is or has been identified as being 1/6th. of America's economy. Then consider the impact on the financial markets when Greece was defaulting. America runs on the capitalist system, converting to something similar to what Venezuela has doesn't work for me.
Can it be better ? For sure. But complete removal IMO would be a disaster.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Government exists to establish limits to destructive behaviours, including corporate behaviour.
Before we had our universal cover (Medicare) the private health industry needed to justify their annual premium increases to the Minister for Health. The size of their financial reserves and rising costs were taken into consideration before approval.
We still have private cover as well as medicare. Private cover is optional, but if someone has the means to afford it and chooses not to, there is a surcharge on their income tax that goes to medicare. In this way the government encourages people to use the private sector while also preventing profiteering.
What happened to the old idea "Where there is a will, there is a way" ? There must be some way that the US can preserve profitability and provide affordable health care for all.
Before we had our universal cover (Medicare) the private health industry needed to justify their annual premium increases to the Minister for Health. The size of their financial reserves and rising costs were taken into consideration before approval.
We still have private cover as well as medicare. Private cover is optional, but if someone has the means to afford it and chooses not to, there is a surcharge on their income tax that goes to medicare. In this way the government encourages people to use the private sector while also preventing profiteering.
What happened to the old idea "Where there is a will, there is a way" ? There must be some way that the US can preserve profitability and provide affordable health care for all.
Lara
Friend of the Arts
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coast
I got it...like this would ever happen...
...we take all the one percenters like Bill Gates (net worth 85Billion), Jeff Bezos of Amazon (net worth 82 Billion), Buffett and Zuckerberg (each worth 78 Billion), Bloomberg (businessman and politician worth 47Billion), etc and require that they adopt a percentage of our country's medical expenses, where the census matches the percentage of their wealth (Gates would adopt the largest population sector), and THEY pay for the healthcare of all people in their sector. Kind of like where groups voluntarily adopt-a-highway to keep it clean.
Won't happen, but it should because obviously they took more than their fair share to pocket that much wealth. I know, silly me to even suggest it. Plus the argument would be "But we earned it"...right.
Aunt Bea
SF VIP
- Location
- Near Mount Pilot
I don't want to pretend to live in a free country while being dependent on the wealthy for my support.
IMO we should all make an effort to pull our own wagon and do what we can to help those that can't.
IMO we should all make an effort to pull our own wagon and do what we can to help those that can't.
Knight
Well-known Member
Health care as in going to a doctor when ill or to control some condition because only a doctor can prescrible the medication a person needs is different that having health insurance.
Maybe it's just me but I think the ACA or Obama Care is a misnomer. Promising affordable insurance to access health care happened for those that were subsidized. Left out were about 28 & 1/2 million plus those that earned to much and have to pay high co pays & high deductions. In a small way Obama Care was successful.
To decide for profit has to be eliminated in order for free care to be implemented doesn't take into account the fact that for profit is what drives the American economy. I think there is a factor being overlooked, that is very visible. The expectation of young people to sign up or be fined was to be the monetary support to pay for older & sicker. That didn't happen to the extent needed and several million stopped paying once april 15th. came and went.
Free has a nice ring to it but it's well known free is for some, others paying taxes provide for the free. Will the tax base be there 15 years from now or will free be the same economic factor that is plaguing other systems now?
This might be something our legislators should look at.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1410425?af=R&rss=currentIssue&#t=article
Maybe it's just me but I think the ACA or Obama Care is a misnomer. Promising affordable insurance to access health care happened for those that were subsidized. Left out were about 28 & 1/2 million plus those that earned to much and have to pay high co pays & high deductions. In a small way Obama Care was successful.
To decide for profit has to be eliminated in order for free care to be implemented doesn't take into account the fact that for profit is what drives the American economy. I think there is a factor being overlooked, that is very visible. The expectation of young people to sign up or be fined was to be the monetary support to pay for older & sicker. That didn't happen to the extent needed and several million stopped paying once april 15th. came and went.
Free has a nice ring to it but it's well known free is for some, others paying taxes provide for the free. Will the tax base be there 15 years from now or will free be the same economic factor that is plaguing other systems now?
This might be something our legislators should look at.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1410425?af=R&rss=currentIssue&#t=article
helenbacque
Senior Member
- Location
- Central Florida
Any system that allows a few people to become obscenely rich just because another human being is sick ............... is just sick !
nvtribefan
Member
- Location
- Reno, NV
Smells like more politics to me.
Knight
Well-known Member
It's possible to be for something but recognize the difficulties of implementing it. I'm beginning to suspect pointing out the difficulties is not a popular with those that have theirs and don't care about what it will take for the taxpayers that will have to provide the "free".
Typically republicans or conservatives are accused being in that I have mine the heck with you mind set. But this time it seems to me that those wanting a single payer system no matter what the consequences are, falls into "I have mine the heck with you mindset"
Typically republicans or conservatives are accused being in that I have mine the heck with you mind set. But this time it seems to me that those wanting a single payer system no matter what the consequences are, falls into "I have mine the heck with you mindset"
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
I don't know of anyone promoting "free" healthcare for everyone. What I DO see is the promoting of a system where we pay taxes into a healthcare fund (like I did for Medicare and Social Security for 54+ years) and then get the healthcare we need without paying a fortune at point of service. Medicare is basically that system, and IMHO, it works just fine.
I do not believe that we need to take the entire profit motive out of healthcare -- after all, we do need talented people to go to medical school and fewer of them will do it if in the end they will end up with huge student loans and end up being paid no more than burger flippers -- but what I DO strongly believe is that we need to take what someone characterized above as "obscene" profits, like that jerk who raised the price of the epi-pen by hundreds of dollars, out of healthcare. I believe it would also help hugely if we could get all the bureaucratic BS out of healthcare, as well as the concept of "defensive medicine," where doctors order god knows how many unnecessary tests to protect themselves from litigation -- we need serious tort reform and we need to prohibit big pharma and other groups with similar interests from contributing equally obscene amounts to political campaigns, and get politics out of healthcare.
I do not believe that we need to take the entire profit motive out of healthcare -- after all, we do need talented people to go to medical school and fewer of them will do it if in the end they will end up with huge student loans and end up being paid no more than burger flippers -- but what I DO strongly believe is that we need to take what someone characterized above as "obscene" profits, like that jerk who raised the price of the epi-pen by hundreds of dollars, out of healthcare. I believe it would also help hugely if we could get all the bureaucratic BS out of healthcare, as well as the concept of "defensive medicine," where doctors order god knows how many unnecessary tests to protect themselves from litigation -- we need serious tort reform and we need to prohibit big pharma and other groups with similar interests from contributing equally obscene amounts to political campaigns, and get politics out of healthcare.
Dragonlady
Member
- Location
- Vancouver, Wa.
Socialism works in health care in most civilized nations - Canada, England. No one's advocating a completely socialized government - most advocate only for single payer health care. Conservatives always raise the boogy man of socialism like health care advocates are going to socialize everything to scare people away
Knight
Well-known Member
Butterfly to your
Quote
"I don't know of anyone promoting "free" healthcare for everyone. What I DO see is the promoting of a system where we pay taxes into a healthcare fund (like I did for Medicare and Social Security for 54+ years) and then get the healthcare we need without paying a fortune at point of service. Medicare is basically that system, and IMHO, it works just fine."
Funding for Social Security and Medicare
Both programs are primarily funded by payroll taxes, which are split evenly between employees and employers (self-employed workers pay both portions, but can deduct half of the self-employment tax from their business income). The Social Security tax rate is higher, but there’s an upper income limit above which Social Security taxes are not levied. The Medicare tax rate is lower, but it applies to all wages.
I was using Bernie Sanders Plan as the way single payer might work, note the URL includes Medicare for all.
Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
How I came to the conclusion free would be for some was based on the Sanders plan. I understand this is NOT in force but a proposal that would have to be presented to congress.
Quote
[Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans.]
Unlike Medicare funding described in "Funding for Social Security and Medicare" simple math tells me not all 322,762,018 million will be paying the medicare tax rate. Free for millions would be a reality. The BLS U-1 thru U-6 report helps with the math.
The concept is great, overcoming the problems with implementation the hard part.
Quote
"I don't know of anyone promoting "free" healthcare for everyone. What I DO see is the promoting of a system where we pay taxes into a healthcare fund (like I did for Medicare and Social Security for 54+ years) and then get the healthcare we need without paying a fortune at point of service. Medicare is basically that system, and IMHO, it works just fine."
Funding for Social Security and Medicare
Both programs are primarily funded by payroll taxes, which are split evenly between employees and employers (self-employed workers pay both portions, but can deduct half of the self-employment tax from their business income). The Social Security tax rate is higher, but there’s an upper income limit above which Social Security taxes are not levied. The Medicare tax rate is lower, but it applies to all wages.
I was using Bernie Sanders Plan as the way single payer might work, note the URL includes Medicare for all.
Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
How I came to the conclusion free would be for some was based on the Sanders plan. I understand this is NOT in force but a proposal that would have to be presented to congress.
Quote
[Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans.]
Unlike Medicare funding described in "Funding for Social Security and Medicare" simple math tells me not all 322,762,018 million will be paying the medicare tax rate. Free for millions would be a reality. The BLS U-1 thru U-6 report helps with the math.
The concept is great, overcoming the problems with implementation the hard part.
Knight
Well-known Member
It might work in America if we took the foreign aid we give to countries that have a single payer system. We could also remove the military bases in countries and apply the cost of those to paying for a single payer system.
Those successful systems might not do as well without the support they receive via American tax dollars supporting their economy.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...tary-bases-overseas-despite-troop-reductions/
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...le-sams-money-goes-to-foreign-aid-guess-again
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Rubbish, Knight. America, like Australia, is a wealthy country.
It is entirely within your means to design a system that you can afford and still have money over for humanitarian aid.
However, a financial haircut for the military bases would probably help.
PS Last time I looked Australia did not have any US tax dollars supporting our economy and the balance of trade remains tipped in US favour. Yet we still manage a health system that everyone can access, regardless of income.
It is entirely within your means to design a system that you can afford and still have money over for humanitarian aid.
However, a financial haircut for the military bases would probably help.
PS Last time I looked Australia did not have any US tax dollars supporting our economy and the balance of trade remains tipped in US favour. Yet we still manage a health system that everyone can access, regardless of income.
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Medicare is single payer healthcare, and it works a hell of a lot better, and with less hassle, than any private healthcare coverage I've ever had. I don't know why everybody is so scared of single payer. You'd be paying tax dollars out of your paycheck into the healthcare plan instead of paying for private insurance policies out of your pocket. What's the problem?
I know this has taken a turn from poster's first question, but i had a couple of things to add. 1) Lets lower some of the doctor's cost which would lower fees. Their malpractice insurance is out of sight. We have way to much suing going on. By the way, I walk the talk, suffered broken neck in car accident(other person 100% fault and never sued). 2) Since medical school is so expensive, how about something like we had in the 60's for science teachers For each year you taught, part of student load was forgiven. Encourage more to be doctors. Standards don't change tho. More doctors, more competition, lower fees. 3) Lower hospital costs - Every hospital doesn't have to have the latest equipment(MRI scanners, etc). Let hospitals specialize in what they treat, thus only need latest equipment for what they treat. Don't need costly equipment that is little used.
One big way to help lower costs in the US is to get the government out of the medical business completely. No more control from the government at all. Let all this happen at the doctors or hospital offices only.
Remember a doctors office a few years back, open the door and be told the doctor is in, sign your name and wait till your turn if no appointment. No huge staff needing paid or directions by the office head person. Prices were reasonable then, a few dollars if nothing serious like a surgery was to happen.
Doctors would also come to the house if called. Made it hard for some hospitals to get enough business to stay open.
Some where between what it was and what we have today. We have a doctor, and office manager, two or three nurses for all the testing and preparations, and a staff for preparing all the paper work to give the patient and for transferring to the government for review and proper filling in. Is the doctor even on one tenth of the cost of medication any more?
Interesting in some of recent post is Medicare. I was recently refused by a doctor that I was sent to concerning broken facial bones as a result of a fall about two months back. His justification was that he will not work with retired folks with Medicare. It would have to be out of pocket in my case and he would not even look at my face until I decided to pay in full.
Medicare is NOT for everyone at all. Only for certain situations. I was just reexamined by another doctor a few days back. He felt that for now we should just allow the bones to heal themselves and work to defend from infections.
This was my first reversal by Medicare but now wonder how many doctors of hospitals have had to do with little or no support from Medicare.
Knight
Well-known Member
Most posts referring to medicare as the example of how a single payer system could work don't understand that paying into the system funds it. Also not understood is the ratio now of those paying in to fund that support is dwindling. Thus the need to begin using the bonds to pay for the cost to supply services. As an example of a successful system for a single payer system to emulate a poorer choice could not be made.
Overcoming the projected doctor shortage, self inflicted health issues, population concentration differences, conversion of those on medicaid to a single payer system are but a few of the problems involved. One big problem or the elephant in the room. People love free stuff, and the way to provide free is to take from those that are working & paying taxes. Common sense should tell everyone that just like everything else government has begun to help,the cost has skyrocketed. With fewer people working to support the cost now of medicare how would the addition of everyone in America be funded?
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
Doctors are not required to accept Medicare patients, nor are hospitals -- it is their choice whether to accept them, just as it is their choice to accept or not to accept certain private insurance. It is up to the patient to inquire whether the doc accepts Medicare before seeing a particular doctor.
Medicare itself does exclude certain procedures, just as all insurances do. If you feel Medicare has excluded something it should cover, you should appeal or have your physician find out if there is a way to have something covered. My guess is that Medicare itself has not refused to cover your injuries, but rather that the doctor you saw chooses not to accept Medicare. Medicare patients must learn to negotiate the system, and check their Medicare's coverage to see what is covered and what is not. You can always call Medicare at their 800 number and find out if your situation is covered.
If that first doctor does not accept Medicare, you should find a doctor who does. Just because you would have had to pay out of pocket for that one doctor does not mean you would have to do so if you had a doctor who accepts Medicare.
We all have to be our own advocates.