Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

Regarding funding of public health care, since public or universal health care is for everyone, then I believe everyone needs to pay. And since millions of people don't work or earn a living, we should not tie funding to business...I don't believe business should be burdened to pay for health care. I think health care is a personal issue therefore the funding must be at a personal level.

Regarding affordability, assuming annual health care spending is $2.5 trillion, dividing this by 300 million Americans, is about $8300 per citizen per year! For a family of four this is $33,200! It is obvious with these numbers alone that perhaps 60-70% of Americans cannot come close to affording US health care. If 70% of Americans don't have the cash for health care then some form of insurance, or, government subsidy, is required!

As I stated somewhere else on this thread, just perhaps it is impossible to create a public health care system when the people are spending $2.5 trillion per year. IMO the cost of health care will never go down due to advancing technologies, drugs, procedures, and care...

 

The actual total spending is $3.35 trillion/year so I lopped off $835 billion to 'estimate' health care spending in the private sector. My estimate was only used to show that at these rates health care in the US is unaffordable to 60-70% of Americans. Medicare is funded by FICA which comes out of people's pockets...

 

I believe if they were forced to analyze the funding for some a light will go on, however, I think millions of Americans believe government money grows on trees...

 

a huge chunk of that cost does NOT come from healthcare but rather fromadministrative costs and profit for healthcare INSURANCE. Take that out and things get considerably cheaper.

 

What I read says total US health care spending is $3.35 trillion of which I knocked off $835 billion for public health care spending to obtain an estimate of private health care spending. I also considered that Medicare is funded by FICA contributions...

 

You are correct but so what...insurance companies are for-profit businesses and are entitled to administrative and profit expenses. Unless we nationalize the insurance companies this will never change. And even if we did nationalize them are things going to be better when the government is involved...

 

We don't need to nationalize insurance companies.....we need to eliminate them or at least greatly reduce them

 

No sir I have many sources for the information I have collected over a life time that I can not spit them out on command should surprise no one. I've seen studies from numerous think tanks that support my statements. Heritage, Brookings, Cato, just to name the top three. I'm actually nerdy enough to appreciate Cspans book TV and have watched lectures by everyone from Dyson to North and many on both sides f the aisle.

 

The two are not the same.

With education, you always have the option to go to a private school, or homeschool.

How's that going to compare to healthcare?

 

Thinks about this fact:
All "Income" is derived from "commerce" conducted by enterprise. People sometimes forget that. When we say the "person" is to pay the person obtains their money from the enterprise so the enterprise is actually paying through the person. If the enterprise doesn't pay the person for what they need, such as health care, then the person can't pay for the health care.

Even all taxes are all funded by the "business" if we follow the money chain.

All the money originates with business. All we really address is where in the money chain to we pay for something. It can be the business paying directly. It can be the business providing wages to the employee and then the employee paying. It can be the business paying the employee that pays taxes to the government and then the government paying.

It always starts with the business.

Every year we generate new wealth and it's called the GDP. For 2017 I understand it will be slightly more than $19 trillion. That is the total amount of goods and services produced by "business" for 2017. Out of that total wealth creation we need to fund health care services for slightly more than 300 million people or about 150 million households.

We're currently spending $2.5 trillion on health care but that's not quite accurate. It's what we're paying but it's more that the cost of the health care. A significant part of that expenditure relates to "overhead" costs that can be reduced and, in limited cases, virtually eliminated. One of the major reductions that I'm aware of is the reducing of overhead costs for primary care medical services that might represent more cost than the actual medical services being provided. As I mentioned there was a news report a few years about private primary care clinics that only accepted "cash for services" and they were able to reduce the billing costs to 50% of what's charged at clinics that provide insurance billing. So how much of the remaining 50% is specifically the cost of the health care service? It's not the rent, it's not the telephone, it's not a lot of things but that doesn't mean those expenditures can be eliminated... but they might be reduced.

While serious illness (major medical) represents about half of all medical costs it's related to a relative small percentage of the people. Primary care represents the majority of all medical visits. If we could replace insurance with cash for service, like buying gasoline and oil changes for your car, then there could be a huge potential savings annually because of the eliminated overhead costs for processing billing and payment through a third party. Arguably it's possible to reduce the $2.5 trillion to less than $2 trillion and even more to receive the same or better health care services.

In the end regardless of cost, because it is a mandatory expenditure, there's still the "who pays for it" but as also noted when we follow the money it's all originating with "enterprise" and we're just picking a place somewhere in the "money flow" to pull the funding from.

 

Education isn't anywhere close to being single-payer. A primary source of education funding is local property taxation and the community has a huge say in both the funding and spending when it comes to education. Then there's additional state funding and 8% comes from the federal government. The money's coming from multiple sources and not a single source.

 

And I agree we should come up with something more efficient than what we have I just don't think UHC is the right way to do it.

 

Cash for service? Who uses this model currently? Somalia?

 

Insurance firms must compete. And when they compete with only government, no wonder prices rocket to sky high prices.

 

You see government funding as different sources, I dont.

 

At this stage in the game we need to be honest. You either believe essential healthcare is a right, or you believe it should belong only to those who can afford it. One is humane, the other is not.

 

Addressing the costs of health care should be addressed first, prior to going with any UHC plan.

Tort reform, allowing negotiated prices for medicines for Medicare patients, etc..

To not allow just those negotiated prices alone, flys in the face of humanity so far as health care is concerned, for those without, which indeed do need.

 

But in order to do those changes you need to have regulatory oversight by the Government, which is what the ACA is all about in the first place. That's why it is important to NOT repeal Obamacare, but keep on fixing it, as it was intended to be done.

The fundamental problem is this strong GOP contingent who keeps insisting against all evidence that by deregulating you will encourage competition and lower prices. I have already explained on this thread those rules of market capitalism did not work before the ACA, and will not after it is gone.

And BTW, Tort Reform has no bearing on the overall costs of healthcare. Malpractice insurance premiums have been flat for a long time, and many states already have had for quite some time cap limits on malpractice lawsuits.

 

I agree that realistically, we'll need to just amend the hell out of the ACA.

I also agree there needs to be better regulation. However, that regulation needs to address the issues I stated at a minimum, if we're to see any real benefit.

My wife is an RN, & indeed, malpractice is a huge cost for our insurance for her.

Not saying that just addressing torts will be a singular cure, but even flattened rates, @ a rate that is artificially high, raises health care costs, availability, & quality of care.

 

The problem with the ACA is that up to this point it has primarily affected the way insurance companies do business, and very little with the provider side of the equation. The two biggest costs are Big Pharma (which the gov't should have done something about in 2005 when they came up with Part D, but lobbying shut the hell out of legislators from allowing CMS to negotiate prices with Big Pharma), and medical devices, the price inflation is just astronomical.

 

Amen.

 

See, with all due respect, the argument you're making has problems. If I am understanding you correctly the argument you are making is that we should have single payer Universal healthcare for all because it is humane and it will help us in the long run. The problem is that historically if you look at other countries who have universal healthcare, the quality of their healthcare facilities such as hospitals have gone down. So the big reason why I oppose universal healthcare is because the quality of the care we get is better than universal healthcare facilities. Now I know what you're going to say, "But, our average age of living is lower than most of the other developed nations how can you say we have better healthcare facilities when the average age Americans live up to is like 70 something." Well, the problem with this argument is that it's not that simple. We as the USA culturally have a problem with obesity and, I could be wrong about his but I think the #1 cause of death for Americans is heart problems. There's a lot more factors at play here than just our healthcare system. Also it would destroy our economy. So with all due respect, for you to say that Universal healthcare/single payer healthcare will solve all our health problems is just wrong and unrealistic.

 

Healthcare is not a threat. It should be available to all of us in a civilized, 21st-century nation. We should be able to pick and choose the kind of healthcare we want from a wide variety of all plans and options. And, each of us should PAY for what kind of healthcare we want.

Ours is a merit-based, market-based society. You get what you earn, you earn what you are worth in the human labor marketplace, and you buy what you want (where legal). If you don't pay, then you don't GET.

It's a simple, just, fair relationship. Each of us must support ourselves, or else we are really nothing different from being parasites, expecting for others to pay our way for us.

One exception: Those citizens who, because of birth defects, horrible diseases, or terrible injuries CANNOT support themselves should be given governmental aid from taxpayers. Claims for such aid should be examined regularly and carefully, and should be conclusively PROVEN before they are approved. In healthcare, the system for this governmental accommodation is Medicaid. And, of course, people can simply "show up" at any hospital emergency room in the United States and get free medical attention....

This is the essence of living in a country that is founded on FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE! You do what you want, you live as you wish, you pursue any destiny or goal that appeals to you, and you succeed or you fail. It's all YOUR decision! You buy what you want, you do what you like, and you live as you wish! So, yes, choose whatever healthcare appeals to you -- and PAY for it yourself!

So, what's the next problem...?

 

Individuals paying cash is how the free market changed the world and made the US the wealthiest country on earth. Again, by your ridiculous standard we should just let government manage all trade and invention.

 

So who uses this model? South Sudan?