follow MisterLefty following
follow MisterLefty 2018 Jun 11, 3:16am
6,012 views 134 comments
« First « Previous Comments 95 - 134 of 134 Last »
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.
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.
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.
Scarcity exists in all health care systems. In all markets.
No-I'm saying that access and quality of healthcare in poor areas is much, much worse than in rich areas.
Your poor choice of words forces me to make assumptions. If you dont like it, be more precise.
"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.
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?
My word choice was precise and accurate. I'm afraid your opinions are just wrong.
Nope--not missing. Obesity definitely plays a part.
Poor people will still have worse outcomes
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.
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.
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.
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.
better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.
LeonDurham saysIf 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.
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.
Define better quality. People from all over the world come here for the best and newest health technology.
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.
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.
I showed you the article describing the shortage of healthcare professionals in many areas of the Deep South.
Goran_K saysThe 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.
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.
Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?
What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Although I would admit that your argument, pay less and get more, is the American desire, but OTOH, you get what you pay for
No. no, it is the precise argument if you will be paying more in taxes under socialized medicine, and don't prefer to.
lol--- theory of supply and demand is gibberish pseudo-theory? Well, OK then
Except you don't. In the US, we pay double and get worse healthcare.
Luckily the country is run by majority so one person who pays more can't override 300 million that do.
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
And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.
but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.
Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.
Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.
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
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
Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced
lol--you think I can't find those studes?
Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?
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 sayslol--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.
« First « Previous Comments 95 - 134 of 134 Last »