patrick.net

ThreeBays says

Radical change is needed. Why is Bernie the only one with the balls to propose one?

You're confused.

Why is Bernie the only idiot to propose it?

There's a reason he's one of the poorest Senators in Congress after 3 decades of serving. Why is that?

ThreeBays says

Why doesn't the GOP & Trump propose anything while they have power?

Why didn't Obama and the Democrats do something about price controls when they were passing Obamacare? That was their signature policy, and they had carte blanche to pass whatever they desired!

socal2 says

I live in in California.

Demographics matter if you want a very generous welfare system.

Like the demographics of say Vermont ROFLOL. Trying to sell the same shit on another thread are we?

Tenpoundbass says

Nationalize Healthcare nobody should be getting rich off the Sick, the infirmed or the indigent.

here we have a right winger that spends a significant amount on healthcare singing the different song. Oh its not communism now.

ThreeBays says

Obama had carte blanche (filibuster proof majority) for a few months only, when they passed Obamacare.

If it was such a wonder program (according to the Democrats) why did they need a filibuster majority to ram it through? Surely there should have been at least a few Repubs that came on board to support such wonderful piece legislation, right?

ThreeBays says

Growth has been much lower than projected all while Obamacare has been in law, all while ACA mandated increased patient protections. Can you deny this?

Such strange Liberal logic... claiming that only a 6% INCREASE annually in costs after Obamacare was inacted is so much better than the 8% annual increases before it.

Normal people would say an even 0.25% increase is too much, specially since wage growth during that time had flat lined. To the majority of normal people, the actual cost (in dollars) is the biggest issue, NOT the rate of change in percentages. How many people go to the store and pay for groceries with "percentages"?

Liberals say the strangest things when trying to justify a crap program that really didn't fix the main issues. Liberal Logic at it's best!

Aphroman says

I’m still waiting for the Repeal and Replace of Obamacare that Trump promised

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/01/30/in-state-of-the-union-trump-touts-end-to-individual-mandate-but-doesnt-ask-for-obamacare-repeal/#451b295cb164

You're welcome. FYI, my clients overwhelmingly hated Obama for the individual mandate and loved trump for removing it.

ThreeBays says

Thanks Koch brothers for showing how Medicare for All Act could save 2 Trillion while insuring every american.

Did you ignore the rest of your chart?

ThreeBays says

No, did you? $2 Trillion saving is the bottom line to the nation's spending.

OK lets go slow. Is 32 trillion in added federal budget more or less than 2 trillion of admin savings?

LeonDurham says

Except for in every other healthcare system in the world.

Lol, ok, go ahead and show us your numbers. This will be hilarious.

ThreeBays says

32 trillion is the budget change, replacing 34 trillion of current projected costs, resulting in the 2 trillion savings overall.

In case it's not obvious, 32 trillion would need to come from increasing Medicare taxes, which we could afford by paying 34 trillion less in private insurance and out of pocket expenses.

You obviously didn't get the memo. Government spending is only good when it's on a wall. Or guns.

Baby boomer logic.

“Taking two Helocs on my home is this easy? Wow. That BMW M5 is going to look great in my garage!”

“I have to pay for my own health care? But but health care is a right!”

What a failure of a generation.

ThreeBays says

MrMagic says

Such strange Liberal logic... claiming that only a 6% INCREASE annually in costs after Obamacare was inacted is so much better than the 8% annual increases before it.

Normal people would say an even 0.25% increase is too much, specially since wage growth during that time had flat lined. To the majority of normal people, the actual cost (in dollars) is the biggest issue, NOT the rate of change in percentages. How many people go to the store and pay for groceries with "percentages"?

Liberals say the strangest things when trying to justify a crap program that really didn't fix the main issues. Liberal Logic at it's best!

Wow, that's one of the dumbest things I've read in a while.

Thanks for proving my point. Liberals don't understand basic math and economics.

I rest my case, your honor.

ThreeBays says

In case it's not obvious, 32 trillion would need to come from increasing Medicare taxes, which we could afford by paying 34 trillion less in private insurance and out of pocket expenses.

Any idea how much of that 34 million is paid by employers as a "benefit" to the employee in the form of covering the biggest part of their health insurance bill? So once the government takes over the cost, and relieves the employer of that cost for his employees, where do you think that money will go?

There are many part time workers and contract workers that don't get employer paid healthcare. You think the employers will roll over at the barrel of a gun and start paying all these new INCREASED Medicare taxes for ALL employees?

Trump supporter strawman logic--

Someone saying that the US should adopt a plan that saves money and gives everyone health care is somehow saying:

Goran_K says

“I have to pay for my own health care? But but health care is a right!”

What a failure of a generation.

MrMagic says

Any idea how much of that 34 million is paid by employers as a "benefit" to the employee in the form of covering the biggest part of their health insurance bill?

And those benefits are part of your compensation package. It's YOUR money

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Any idea how much of that 34 million is paid by employers as a "benefit" to the employee in the form of covering the biggest part of their health insurance bill?

And those benefits are part of your compensation package. It's YOUR money

Actually it's not, it's a "benefit", as in perk of their job. That's why there are employees who DON'T get it.

Try looking up the definition of "benefit", it will be an educational experience.

Next thing we'll hear is that it's a "right" as an employee, is that correct?

LeonDurham says

a plan that saves money and gives everyone health care

When one is actually discussed, then you have a point.

Until then, no dice.

ThreeBays says

In case that's not obvious as well, employers could be MADE to pay their part, just the same way as they DO for Social Security already. It's called writing legislation.

Did ya miss this part:

MrMagic says

You think the employers will roll over at the barrel of a gun and start paying all these new INCREASED Medicare taxes for ALL employees?

Let's see some logic, if the employers are "MADE" to pay these additional, increased taxes for ALL employees, what do you think will happen to total headcount in the company?

This answer should be great!

Goran_K says

When one is actually discussed, then you have a point.

Until then, no dice.

This thread is discussing it.

MrMagic says

Actually it's not, it's a "benefit", as in perk of their job. That's why there are employees who DON'T get it.

lol--no, it's a benefit.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/employee-benefits.html

"In general, indirect and non-cash compensation paid to an employee. Some benefits are mandated by law (such as social security, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation), others vary from firm to firm or industry to industry (such as health insurance, life insurance, medical plan, paid vacation, pension, gratuity)."


Regardless of the term you want to call it, it's part of one's compensation package so it's YOUR money.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

Actually it's not, it's a "benefit", as in perk of their job. That's why there are employees who DON'T get it.

lol--no, it's a benefit.

Regardless of the term you want to call it, it's part of one's compensation package so it's YOUR money.

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

Leon - I believe the analysis showing $2 trillion in savings assumes that the health industry remains static and that all doctors will happily take roughly a 30-40% cut to accept Medicare level payments.

I think it is obvious that we will see many doctors leave the practice and the shortage of healthcare providers will have a big impact on costs, wait times and quality of care.

socal2 says

I think it is obvious that we will see many doctors leave the practice and the shortage of healthcare providers will have a big impact on costs, wait times and quality of care.

That's actually true. If anyone here knows someone on Medicaid, go ask them how's access to the doctors of their choice and how much freedom to they have to choose what treatments they want.

We should allow the government to run healthcare and every other important industry. Over the years they have proved to be competent and efficient.

MrMagic says

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

wtf are you talking about? Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

socal2 says

Leon - I believe the analysis showing $2 trillion in savings assumes that the health industry remains static and that all doctors will happily take roughly a 30-40% cut to accept Medicare level payments.

Can you show something to back that up?

LeonDurham says

This thread is discussing it.

... and so far, no plan has been presented that would cover ALL, and save money.

LeonDurham says

Can you show something to back that up?

I didn't realize this was in dispute.

*More Doctors Steer Clear of Medicare*
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323971204578626151017241898

Where will doctors go if the Government takes over the whole system?

socal2 says

Where will doctors go if the Government takes over the whole system?

Heh heh heh heh heh (evil laugh).

One thing I guarantee is that Rx Companies will get paid full retail price, even when Medicaid is buying the same pills by the billions.

tovarichpeter says

Medicare For All plan would actually save us money

That is a non-sequitur. (Where is Iwog when you need him?) If your taxes increase more than you are paying for insurance now, not so.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

So, EVERYONE in the company gets it, since it's THEIR money?

wtf are you talking about? Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

Not sure that there are many, if any, people who get Healthcare costs paid for by the company they work for outside of workmen's comp claims.

What you're talking about is health insurance premium costs, please keep the terminology straight. To the point of compensation, one can figure health insurance premium cost paid by an employer as compensation, in the event that they would most likely otherwise purchase the insurance and use it. If one would not purchase the insurance and use it, it is hardly compensation worthy of comparison to other compensation when comparing job to job.

There is a technicality here that has not been mentioned. The shared responsibility charge, where in you're charged for working without obtaining health insurance, should be factored into the base cost of the insurance as a deduction of "compensation." You would be forced at gun point/threat of jail/fines to pay this, so it should be a consideration that lowers the base.

Health Insurance Premium is NOT Healthcare Cost!!!! Use the proper terminology, otherwise the industry that benefits from the confusion will just keep reaping profits enforced by the ACA.

Tatupu, knock it off with the personal attacks.

MisterLefty says

If your taxes increase more than you are paying for insurance now, not so.

Of course. But, it wouldn't be the case here. As the OP states.

ForcedTQ says

What you're talking about is health insurance premium costs, please keep the terminology straight.

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

The double standard is again made plain. It's quite amusing to me at this point.

Let us never again pretend that people left because of Trump winning, shall we?

LeonDurham says

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

Heath care premiums are a funding source for health care. Like fica for medicare or income tax for medicaid. Where the money goes after it is collected is health care costs. You can't double count the same funds like paying a premium than paying a hospital out of the premium.

bob2356 says

LeonDurham says

Healthcare premium costs are a subset of healthcare costs. They are part of healthcare costs.

Heath care premiums are a funding source for health care. Like fica for medicare or income tax for medicaid. Where the money goes after it is collected is health care costs. You can't double count the same funds like paying a premium than paying a hospital out of the premium.

'

Exactly, health insurance premiums support a vehicle for payment of Actual Health CARE costs. Just like wages/interest/profits/creditcards/loans are vehicles for paying Actual Health CARE costs.

The ACA that "we don't have to read" before voting on was mis-represented to the public from the start. And now people are incorrectly associating terms.

ForcedTQ says

Exactly, health insurance premiums support a vehicle for payment of Actual Health CARE costs. Just like wages/interest/profits/creditcards/loans are vehicles for paying Actual Health CARE costs.

The ACA that "we don't have to read" before voting on was mis-represented to the public from the start. And now people are incorrectly associating terms.

I understand where you and Bob are coming from. As long as you are counting insurer's profits in your calculation of health care costs, then I'd agree.

Health care is evolving quickly. I can envision a future that reduces costs by using

1) AI for diagnostics and consultations. (in conjunction with)
2) nurse practitioners.
3) Overseen by MD managers

But also increases in costs attributed to specialized experimental cutting edge procedures that are by definition expensive, and for those who can afford them. In other words, not everything that can be developed in the way of medical technology is "a right," but basic care should be, and in fact for basic care, it often saves money to catch things earlier - especially as our medical tech gets better.


If what's right and most cost effective happens, then the basic care will be covered by some kind of national health care plan that removes the profit incentive from health care. Remember, sometimes therapies that are optimal for the patient are not optimal for maximizing tests, the number of procedures procedures and profits. Leave the profit motive for the optional specialized stuff, but remove all profit motive from basic health care.

And yes, everyone should get it. If you want to call that a "right" then fine. I just see it as something everyone should get. This is America after all. What the hell folks !!!

The thing that holds us back, is that the wealthy don't want to lose the expensive treatments that we can't for sure scale out to be available to everyone. We need to just allow - at least for now - for these to exist, in a separate private marketplace - or premium insurance based market that's available to all (at a price). That's what we have now anyway, so it's not really an ethical problem to go ahead and admit it, but to then do what's right for the masses.

Again. This is America.. Those masses are descendants of people that have fought in wars for our rights and freedoms.

LeonDurham says

Those that get healthcare costs paid by the company are getting a benefit as part of their total compensation package. Regardless of who sends the check to the healthcare company, it's the employee's money.

I see, so it's their money, as you claim, so when a new employee starts at a company, and has a 3 month probation period before their healthcare coverage kicks in, the employer gives them additional money in their paycheck those first three months. Then when insurance starts, they take that money out of the paycheck and divert it to insurance payments, right? After all, it's THEIR money.

Conversely, if two people, Joe and Harry, start at a company at the same time with the same position. Joe needs insurance but Harry doesn't, so since it's THEIR money, Harry gets more in his paycheck than Joe, since it's the employee's money, and he's not getting the insurance, so that premium amount is given to him as additional cash.

Is that correct?