patrick.net

Hassan_Rouhani says

California's estimate for "universal healthcare" came at 15% of additional tax on top of existing SIT being necessary to pay for it. This is waaaaaaay more than I pay for my employer-provided health plan, co-pays, deductibles and all that jazz.

Exactly, and California had universal healthcare as a bill, but it got shuttered in committee because of "costs".

Now why would the supposed 5th largest economy in the world shutter UHC if it's "cheaper"?

CBOEtrader says

Source, or you made this up.

Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.

Here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Goran_K says

Exactly, that's why I asked "cheaper for who", and I've only gotten crickets.

No, it's cheaper for EVERYONE because it's MUCH, MUCH more efficient.

The cost of all health care is reduced.

How is this not understood?

MisterLefty says

I think the debate is whether folks would be paying more overall. Let's say you are reasonably healthy, exercise, don't smoke, and eat well. And your employer covers a good chunk of your medical insurance, for example.

Study after study after study all agree that the US spends 1.5-2X what every other country does. So, it's pretty clear that costs can come down. How much do you pay for health coverage every year? No matter if you're healthy or not.

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.

Goran_K says

Yes, but if tax burden is increased, how can you prove that that burden is LESS for me than what I'd pay an insurance company? Can you prove it?

Yes, of course. Study after study confirm it.

LeonDurham says

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.

In all socialized systems, the government takes your money for healthcare? Yes?

Also, with my current insurance plan, I can see a specialist the same day.

Can you do that in Canada or the UK?

Hmm, it's cheaper, but it seems like it's suckier too....

Gee, that sucks. Cheaper seems worse in terms of wait times.

OK--so let's not use Canada's model (although I don't trust those numbers). There are literally dozens of other systems to emulate instead.

But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.

LeonDurham says

But, I'd suspect that we could offer services you could buy that would allow access to Drs. with much shorter wait times if that's really important to you along with the new system.

Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?

Not a good idea to try and troll a mod Tatupu. Keep it on topic and not personal, or you're going to enjoy this pleasant debate a lot less. :)

Goran_K says

Hmm. So you're admitting that rationing is inherent to socialized healthcare, and to get around it, you would need another system to correct for that?

Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that there are wait times no matter what system is in use and one way around it is to allow people the choice of shortening the wait time by paying extra.

LeonDurham says

CBOEtrader says

Source, or you made this up.

Is this a joke? Just google health outcome by country.

Here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.

Try using facts to make your case.

The fact is longevity and IMR are both functions of lifestyle choices. Drugs, terrible eating habits, and skipping free pre-natal doctors appointments result in a much higher IMR in our black communities, for example.

Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.

Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.

Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).

fyi--rationing is inherent to ALL health care systems.

Currently, US rations based on a person's wealth.

LeonDurham says

US rations based on a person's wealth.

Yes, and there would be far more care in a free market. I'm glad we agree

CBOEtrader says

Your comment was about longevity. Arbitrary rankings aren't even data, much less facts. It's basically some pundits top 10 list.

Much comment was about measurable outcomes. And those are easily measured and compiled data.

CBOEtrader says

ry using facts to make your case.

I did.

CBOEtrader says

Ask yourself why New Hampshire has an equivalent IMR to europe whereas in Alabama the IMR is more than double Europe's.

Ask yourself why the white IMR in US is marginally higher than EU, where black IMR is 2.2 times the white IMR. Keep in mind ALL the poorest mothers have medicaid.

Access to prenatal care isn't a problem for the despondent in the US (though it may be a problem for the working middle class).

Are there no black people in Europe? Wow--how enlightening.

I'm pretty sure there is a relation between IMR and $$. You think that might have something to do with it??

CBOEtrader says

Yes, and there would be far more care in a free market. I'm glad we agree

Maybe--not sure how to get a free market in health care though. It fails many of the preconditions for a free market.

Extremely inelastic demand. High information inequality.

LeonDurham says

I'm saying that there are wait times no matter what system is in use

Sure, but socialized wait times are enforced as are doctor queues.

Me, I can just pick any doctor with availability, and right this minute I can get a specialist appointment for the afternoon if I wanted.

LeonDurham says

Currently, US rations based on a person's wealth.

Yes, and that's great. The market is determining the rationing, not the same type of guy who works at the DMV.

Goran_K says

Yes, and that's great. The market is determining the rationing, not the same type of guy who works at the DMV.

lol--more trolling. Pretty sure the guy at the DMV wouldn't be leading the US health care system.

(although, with Trump as President you never know. The guy at the DMV is probably better than 50% of the current cabinet)

LeonDurham says

lol--more trolling. Pretty sure the guy at the DMV wouldn't be leading the US health care system.

No one said they'd be leading the US health care system but they would be the type who would be running it administratively.

Long lines, queuing. Sound familiar?

Goran_K says

No one said they'd be leading the US health care system but they would be the type who would be running it administratively.

Long lines, queuing. Sound familiar?

No, not really. The DMV is a state run facility and in my state, the wait times are very short.

And any decisions about how many Drs to hire would be made pretty far up the food chain.

Goran_K says

Cherry picking. The entire civilized world outside the US has national healthcare and most of it is better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.

LeonDurham says

The DMV is a state run facility and in my state, the wait times are very short.

Which state is that tatupu, illinois? "Short wait times" and DMV aren't things that usually go together.

Heraclitusstudent says

Cherry picking.

Cherry picking? Canada is often brought up as a "successful" nationalized system.

The entire civilized world outside the US has national healthcare and most of it is better quality than the US for 1/2 the price.

Better for who? I can see a specialist today. Can you do that in Canada, the UK, or France?

Goran_K says

Which state is that tatupu, illinois? "Short wait times" and DMV aren't things that usually go together.

I believe that's against the rules.

LeonDurham says

I believe that's against the rules.

What's against the rules?

Goran_K says

What's against the rules?

This post:

Goran_K says

Which state is that tatupu, illinois?

Yep--it got me back on to moderation approval only. lol

I could be wrong, but are you guys referencing the doxxing part of the moderation policy when you say breaking the rules? This one's up to Pat, but I'm of the opinion that if you give out your state in previous comments, then it's fair game to mention. It's nearly impossible to actually dox someone just based on the state unless they use their real name as a public username. I understood it more as a question/comment about IL since I believe it has been brought up in the past as being the commenters place of residence.

As to IL DMV's, you really don't even need to go to one anymore. Vehicle registration is all through email/online. Even the every 4 years or so driver license renewal is not bad (I think you only have to go in for vision issues or if you've had past violations). Just did mine last summer, took 10 minutes strictly for the eye test and a new photo (fuck that was a bad photo). At least in IL the bad rap on DMV operations has kind of gone away (fuck, not sure how IL did it considering all the other issues).

I'm not in IL anyway.

LeonDurham says

I'm not in IL anyway.

Ok. I have no clue. I've been MIA the last month or so. Is it because he mentioned Tatupu? It was phrased as a question to a past active user (that I assume he believes is you) but I didn't see anything wrong with it. That's why I was asking about the doxxing part. Trying to get clear on what rule was broken.

FYI, congrats on not being in IL. When the next recession comes at some point, IL is going to be a blood bath. Although the DMV's are good by me now.

LeonDurham says

I'm pretty sure there is a relation between IMR and $$. You think that might have something to do with it??

Insofar as the lack of money results in unhealthy lifestyle decisions, then sure. Your claim is it's the healthcare system though rather than lifestyle decisions.

Are you admitting the healthcare system is a minor factor in actual population health?

WookieMan says

IL DMV's

ironically, the DMV's in Chicago are amazing. Far better than anything I've experienced in texas

CBOEtrader says

Are you admitting the healthcare system is a minor factor in actual population health?

Again-please don't put words in my mouth. That's very trollish.

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

LeonDurham says

And your employer doesn't pay for anything. They are taking money that they would have paid you in salary and instead pay it as "benefits" on your health care. It's all YOUR money.

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.

LeonDurham says

Study after study after study all agree that the US spends 1.5-2X what every other country does. So, it's pretty clear that costs can come down. How much do you pay for health coverage every year? No matter if you're healthy or not.

So let's try to model an equation.

To make your argument work,

Increase in personal taxes to pay for socialized medicine must be less than personal cost of healthcare plan subsidized by your employer plus decrease in medication cost plus decrease in cost of accessing healthcare providers including doctors, hospitals, etc.

Data point: 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey. Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $18,142 this year, up 3 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $5,277 towards the cost of their coverage. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx

Assumption: you are healthy, see a doctor only once a year for annual physical, and take only generic drugs. Your plan includes a $4,000 deductible. Under socialized medicine, this drops to zero.

Assumption: You make $200,000 per year and pay $42,000 in federal taxes. You also paid $2,900 in Medicare taxes for a total bill of $51,900.

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.

Under these assumptions, why would you be in favor of socialized medicine?

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.

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

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.