MisterLefty says

You can play with the numbers, but if you are healthy, and have decent employer provided healthcare coverage, take generics, it is possible that you are doing better than you would do under socialized medicine, in spite of the average savings due to lower costs.

This is not just theory, it's a legitimate fact.

Socialized healthcare is usually supported by people who do not understand the basic concept of scarcity.

https://michaelsavage.com/?p=19137

Socialized medicine ends with doctors knifing their patients and pulling the fillings out of their teeth.

Everyone knows that.

Sick poor people die grim, painful deaths.

This is why we have the second amendment, guaranteeing our right to put suffering friends and relatives out of their misery, exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.

Goran_K says

This is not just theory, it's a legitimate fact.

Socialized healthcare is usually supported by people who do not understand the basic concept of scarcity.

That is absolutely not true. Not a fact.

Scarcity exists in all health care systems. In all markets.

Tenpoundbass says

https://michaelsavage.com/?p=19137

Hilarious!

MisterLefty says

Ha, ha,ha... No, if companies did not have to contribute to employees' healthcare, they's find something else to do with that money - invest in the business, return to shareholders, buy back stock, offer bonuses for all senior management, etc., but they would not give that money to employees, except in George Bailey's world.

No, they would have to in order to keep their employees. Labor is a free market and salary + benefits is set by the market. If your companiy reduce benefits, then salaries would have to go up to maintain the same equilibrium on the supply/demand curve.


MisterLefty says

Assumption: Under socialized medicine, you are paying $65,000 in federal plus Medicare taxes, a difference of $23,000. But under socialized medicine, you saved $5,277 plus $4,000 or $9,277. So you are worse off under socialized medicine, and are paying $13,723 more.

Those are poor assumptions. You absolutely ARE paying for all of your healthcare, whether your company sends the check directly or you send it. So, Change the $5277 to $18142.

Where did you come up with the $23000 extra with single payer too? Why would it be MORE than what we're paying now? Every other system pays much LESS--usually around 1/2 of what we pay.

MisterLefty says

You can play with the numbers, but if you are healthy, and have decent employer provided healthcare coverage, take generics, it is possible that you are doing better than you would do under socialized medicine, in spite of the average savings due to lower costs.

Nobody knows until the numbers come out, but if the argument is that unless EVERYONE saves money don't do it, that's a really ridiculous argument. It could save the country trillions. And eliminate massive amounts of waste.

LeonDurham says

Scarcity exists in all health care systems. In all markets.

Yes, scarcity exist in every market, but socialism is one of the WORST ways to distribute supply to demand.

LeonDurham says

No-I'm saying that access and quality of healthcare in poor areas is much, much worse than in rich areas.

Wrong. The poorest people on medicaid go to the ER for the common cold. They have the most accessible care available to anyone. A mother on medicaid could do prenatal anytime she wants. Sometimes they simply choose not to go, sure. However the facts are that the personal health decisions of the mother (drugs, doritos for dinner, etc...) are the reason why their newborns have problems. This has nothing to do w our healthcare system. Any doctor will tell you the same.

Your poor choice of words forces me to make assumptions. If you dont like it, be more precise.

CBOEtrader says

Wrong.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not wrong.

Here's an article for you to read:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-health-care-system-is-leaving-the-southern-black-belt-behind/

"Southern states have health outcomes that are among the worst in the U.S. overall, and they have some of the largest in-state health disparities, according to County Health Rankings, an annual report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin. Transportation options are limited, and health care worker shortages are routine. In Alabama, Black Belt counties have fewer primary care physicians, dentists and mental health providers per resident than other counties. They also tend to have the highest rates of uninsured people. Poverty rates, which are associated with limited access to care, are also high."

CBOEtrader says

Your poor choice of words forces me to make assumptions. If you dont like it, be more precise.

My word choice was precise and accurate. I'm afraid your opinions are just wrong.

LeonDurham says

"Southern states have health outcomes that are among the worst in the U.S. overall

Uh, there are some other factors to consider here which you may be missing.

Goran_K says

Uh, there are some other factors to consider here which you may be missing.

Nope--not missing. Obesity definitely plays a part.

Goran_K says

Without definition of Obese and an explaination on how they came to that conclusion. What was the sample group?
The sickest of America that absolutely has to use the expensive Obamacare probably are also the 16 year straight SNAP recipients and have free healthcare so it's no skin off their ass to take their fat ass down to the Doctor's office to get checked out. Otherwise I'm only seeing 3 in 100 that I would consider obese. Spite what Liberals, the healtscam industry and Crossfit companies through out America would have you believe. Not every 30 year old male should look like an anemic Soy Boy Skelator.

I've had this argument with local idiots so I can better understand what the Left have brainwashed people to think is Obese. Basically if a Male doesn't have the body of Tommy Ramon circa 1975 and if the females don't have the body of Taylor Swift then they are obese.

Goran_K says

Uh, there are some other factors to consider here which you may be missing.

If you normalize for obesity percentages, it won't really change the result. Poor people will still have worse outcomes.

It's hard to believe anyone would argue that point.

Tenpoundbass says

he sickest of America that absolutely has to use the expensive Obamacare probably are also the 16 year straight SNAP recipients and have free healthcare so it's no skin off their ass to take their fat ass down to the Doctor's office to get checked out.

You think people are looking forward to going to the Drs. office?

LeonDurham says

You think people are looking forward to going to the Drs. office?

When it's Free and they get their Opiate fix for free. Hey listen when I arrived here, I was driving the Turnip truck.

LeonDurham says

My word choice was precise and accurate. I'm afraid your opinions are just wrong.

Ok let's explore. My opinion is to agree w the facts that suggest poor health results are a function mostly of poor personal choices rather than an indictment of the healthcare system.

LeonDurham says

Nope--not missing. Obesity definitely plays a part.

So does obesity play a part? Or am I wrong?

Who is right? The Leon who says it's about poor healthcare for those in poverty or the leon who agrees that personal choices are the driver?

Didnt you speak out of both sides of your mouth in the global warming discussion too? Almost like you argue to argue.

LeonDurham says

Poor people will still have worse outcomes

All the more reason to improve your lot in life so you won't be poor.

LeonDurham says

If you normalize for obesity percentages, it won't really change the result. Poor people will still have worse outcomes.

It's hard to believe anyone would argue that point.

No one is arguing that point, we're arguing why the South has the "worst outcomes" according to the article your posted. Poor people in Colorado have better outcomes than the poor people in the South because they aren't as obese as a population. That article fails to point that out completely.

CBOEtrader says

Ok let's explore. My opinion is to agree w the facts that suggest poor health results are a function mostly of poor personal choices rather than an indictment of the healthcare system.

Except those aren't the facts.

CBOEtrader says

So does obesity play a part? Or am I wrong?

Who is right? The Leon who says it's about poor healthcare for those in poverty or the leon who agrees that personal choices are the driver?

Didnt you speak out of both sides of your mouth in the global warming discussion too? Almost like you argue to argue.

Again you try to put words in my mouth. Saying something "plays a part" doesn't mean that it's "the driver" That's disingenuous and trollish. Please stop..

Goran_K says

No one is arguing that point, we're arguing why the South has the "worst outcomes" according to the article your posted. Poor people in Colorado have better outcomes than the South because they aren't 50 pounds overweight.

Uh, you are clearly arguing that point then. If you normalize out obesity, then poor people in Colorado having better outcomes couldn't be because they are overweight. That's pretty much what normalizing means.

Heraclitusstudent says

better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.

Define better quality. People from all over the world come here for the best and newest health technology.

If we dropped the govt intervention prices would drop like a rock.

Goran_K says

LeonDurham says

If you normalize for obesity percentages, it won't really change the result. Poor people will still have worse outcomes.

It's hard to believe anyone would argue that point.

No one is arguing that point, we're arguing why the South has the "worst outcomes" according to the article your posted.

The article he posted proves my point. "8% uninsured" is significantly less than 12% nationwide. The reason more people in that county are insured is because most are on medicaid. Their personal decisions are the cause of their lower life expectancies and higher IMR. There is no serious healthcare professional or doctor who could argue otherwise. The statistics are very clear.

LeonDurham says

Uh, you are clearly arguing that point then. If you normalize out obesity, then poor people in Colorado having better outcomes couldn't be because they are overweight. That's pretty much what normalizing means.

Sure, but then the entire point of "South having worst outcomes" was a complete distraction when your actual point was that "poor" people have the worst outcomes.Everyone knows that.

The truth is poor people tend to have the worst outcomes for everything; health, graduation rates, becoming criminals, etc.

Better not stay poor, which isn't hard in the United States according to the Brookings Institute (left leaning). Just graduate high school, get married before kids, and get a job.

CBOEtrader says

Define better quality. People from all over the world come here for the best and newest health technology.

Source? How many people come here vs. go to European countries?


CBOEtrader says

The article he posted proves my point. "8% uninsured" is significantly less than 12% nationwide. The reason more people in that county are insured is because most are on medicaid. Their personal decisions are the cause of their lower life expectancies and higher IMR. There is no serious healthcare professional or doctor who could argue otherwise. The statistics are very clear.

Uninsured doesn't equal "access to healthcare". I showed you the article describing the shortage of healthcare professionals in many areas of the Deep South.

Goran_K says

Sure, but then the entire point of "South having worst outcomes" was a complete distraction when your actual point was that "poor" people have the worst outcomes.Everyone knows that.

The South is poor so it was an article detailing how one slice of poor people have less access.

Goran_K says

The truth is poor people tend to have the worst outcomes for everything; health, graduation rates, becoming criminals, etc.

No kidding. And it's not because they're fat.

Goran_K says

Better not stay poor, which isn't hard in the United States according to the Brookings Institute (left leaning). Just graduate high school, get married before kids, and get a job.

lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.

LeonDurham says

I showed you the article describing the shortage of healthcare professionals in many areas of the Deep South.

You are conflating issues. There is a lack of top quality specialists in rural areas. There is no shortage of professionals who can do prenatal care and annual wellness checks. So yes, if you are diagnosed with a rare cancer, you'd have to get to a big city doctor. However, not doing a prenatal visit or eating doritos are personal poor decisions. The lowered life expectancy and IMR in our black communities is a direct result of bad decisions. It has nothing to do w healthcare.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

The truth is poor people tend to have the worst outcomes for everything; health, graduation rates, becoming criminals, etc.

No kidding. And it's not because they're fat.

Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?

LeonDurham says

lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.

What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.

CBOEtrader says

Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?

Bingo.

Goran_K says

What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.

It's not an opinion. It's pretty easy to look at the Walmart pay/hour, multiply it by 40 hours/week and see that one is still poor.

CBOEtrader says

Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?

What are you talking about? Who says it's your Drs. fault? Why the preoccupation with obesity? Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?

LeonDurham says

No, they would have to in order to keep their employees. Labor is a free market and salary + benefits is set by the market. If your companiy reduce benefits, then salaries would have to go up to maintain the same equilibrium on the supply/demand curve.

Gibberish pseudo-theory. I prefer to look at the real world and real world behavior of employers. Of course, you could be on Trump's side and believe that lower corporate taxes will result in a passing on of the savings to employees in the form of fatter paychecks. You know you want to wear that red MAGA hat. LeonDurham says

Those are poor assumptions. You absolutely ARE paying for all of your healthcare, whether your company sends the check directly or you send it. So, Change the $5277 to $18142.

No, and I can provide numerous links that break down contribution by employees and contributions by employers. For an average family it is about 1/3 employee, 2/3 company. Again, I believe there is no evidence to show that employers will pass that 2/3 cost, around $10k or so, onto the employee in the form of a nice raise.LeonDurham says

Where did you come up with the $23000 extra with single payer too? Why would it be MORE than what we're paying now? Every other system pays much LESS--usually around 1/2 of what we pay.

I'll run some calculations again later. If you Google if folks pay more taxes under socialized medicine, there is no consensus. However, if you look at tax rates in countries that do have socialized medicine, you will see much higher personal tax rates in general. Although I would admit that your argument, pay less and get more, is the American desire, but OTOH, you get what you pay for.LeonDurham says

Nobody knows until the numbers come out, but if the argument is that unless EVERYONE saves money don't do it, that's a really ridiculous argument.

No. no, it is the precise argument if you will be paying more in taxes under socialized medicine, and don't prefer to.

MisterLefty says

Gibberish pseudo-theory.

lol--- theory of supply and demand is gibberish pseudo-theory? Well, OK then.

MisterLefty says

Of course, you could be on Trump's side and believe that lower corporate taxes will result in a passing on of the savings to employees in the form of fatter paychecks. You know you want to wear that red MAGA hat.

Nope--two totally different situations. Giving companies money doesn't raise wages because it doesn't affect the supply and demand of workers. Reducing benefits is giving all workers a pay cut and will definitely have an impact.

MisterLefty says

o, and I can provide numerous links that break down contribution by employees and contributions by employers. For an average family it is about 1/3 employee, 2/3 company. Again, I believe there is no evidence to show that employers will pass that 2/3 cost, around $10k or so, onto the employee in the form of a nice raise

Well, you believe incorrectly. Wages are set by supply and demand You're saying giving everyone a pay cut will have no effect. That's wrong.

MisterLefty says

Although I would admit that your argument, pay less and get more, is the American desire, but OTOH, you get what you pay for

Except you don't. In the US, we pay double and get worse healthcare. This is not in doubt. It has been shown in study after study after study. We pay more and get less.

MisterLefty says

No. no, it is the precise argument if you will be paying more in taxes under socialized medicine, and don't prefer to.

Luckily the country is run by majority so one person who pays more can't override 300 million that do.

LeonDurham says

lol--- theory of supply and demand is gibberish pseudo-theory? Well, OK then

Consider if all employers decide to apply their portion of their contribution to employees healthcare to other uses, e.g. invest internally, return to shareholders, etc. Nothing will have changed from this mythical supply and demand perspective. A given employee would not be getting a better deal elsewhere, under this assumption, and the status quo would be maintained.LeonDurham says

Except you don't. In the US, we pay double and get worse healthcare.

And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.LeonDurham says

Luckily the country is run by majority so one person who pays more can't override 300 million that do.

Actually the country is run by the banksters, but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.

MisterLefty says

Consider if all employers decide to apply their portion of their contribution to employees healthcare to other uses, e.g. invest internally, return to shareholders, etc. Nothing will have changed from this mythical supply and demand perspective. A given employee would not be getting a better deal elsewhere, under this assumption, and the status quo would be maintained

Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.

MisterLefty says

And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.

Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.

MisterLefty says

but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.

OK--luckily the country is run by the majority of voters, so one person who pays more can't override the 128MM that do. Is that better?

LeonDurham says

Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.

Employee pay after taxes might be reduced to pay for the increased taxes to fund socialized medicine, perhaps. but as the employer contribution is not represented on their current paycheck, when it is not longer provided, it can't in and of itself reduce the paycheck.LeonDurham says

Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.

Which you won't reference. To be clear, a reference describing how care will be better in the USA under a scenario of paying less would be interesting to see.LeonDurham says

MisterLefty says

Employee pay after taxes might be reduced to pay for the increased taxes to fund socialized medicine, perhaps. but as the employer contribution is not represented on their current paycheck, when it is not longer provided, it can't in and of itself reduce the paycheck

Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced.

MisterLefty says

Which you won't reference. To be clear, a reference describing how care will be better in the USA under a scenario of paying less would be interesting to see

lol--you think I can't find those studes?

https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/paris/pdf/Joumard.pdf
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.219
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

I can link to more if you'd like, but it's pretty simple if you want to do it yourself. Google--health care system efficiency by country.

LeonDurham says

Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced

Yes, to pay for higher socialized medicine taxes, an argument against it.LeonDurham says

lol--you think I can't find those studes?

I don't think you understand them. Please point out in any of those links information verifying your belief that by paying less, care would improve.

LeonDurham says

Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?

This isn't true man. Someone on Medicaid has better access to care than any of us. To be on medicaid you need to make less than $12500/yr.

These same people have much higher rates of IMR because of poor choices. Go read any legit study on the topic anywhere. The causes of IMR are pre-teen and young teen pregnancy, drugs, poor eating habits, and stress. All of these women have access to a few pre natal screenings. All of them. Usually they have free access.

MisterLefty says

I don't think you understand them. Please point out in any of those links information verifying your belief that by paying less, care would improve.

By copying the best of those systems, efficiency would be vastly improved and outcomes could improve even as costs decreased.

Goran_K says

LeonDurham says

lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.

What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/minimum-wage-worker-needs-2-174600615.html

"NLIHC found that a worker needs to earn $17.90 an hour at a full-time job — 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year — to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment. That's over $10 more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25."