ThanksObama wrote:
I don't really understand how the health care insurance system works...
That's fairly clear. Fortunately, that doesn't prevent you from assuming that the problems in the system are Obama's fault!
ThanksObama wrote:
I don't really understand how the health care insurance system works...
That's fairly clear. Fortunately, that doesn't prevent you from assuming that the problems in the system are Obama's fault!
Old timey guy wrote:
Go ahead and list all the exemptions you are allowed to deduct from your yearly income.
Do you realize the tax codes fill encyclopedia volumes? Why don't we just go tit for tat to compare? I can deduct all medical and dental costs from my taxes that are not covered by Alberta Health Care.
Old timey guy wrote:
Canadian Here wrote:Sales tax in Alberta is 5%. In California it is 7.25% - 9.75%. As I said before, it is a myth created by Americans that Canadians pay more in taxes.
Go ahead and list all the exemptions you are allowed to deduct from your yearly income.
Comparing the USA and Canada has some inherent problems. Canada is 1/10 the population with different economic drivers. It is comparing apples to oranges.
That said, I wouldn't mind if some states adopted a single payer system, while other states did the opposite. We can let the states be the "laboratories of innovation" and see how it goes. See what works out better. Why have the federal government dictate how health needs to be for everyone since no one really knows the system that will work best?
celery wrote:
We want world class health care, but want it to be dirt cheep. It just doesn't work that way. You can't buy a yacht for the price of a canoe.
Except that plenty of other countries have better outcomes at much lower cost per capita.
celery wrote:
Comparing the USA and Canada has some inherent problems. Canada is 1/10 the population with different economic drivers. It is comparing apples to oranges.
That said, I wouldn't mind if some states adopted a single payer system, while other states did the opposite. We can let the states be the "laboratories of innovation" and see how it goes. See what works out better. Why have the federal government dictate how health needs to be for everyone since no one really knows the system that will work best?
And will the states with good health care be able to prevent people from the states that skip out from moving there when they get sick?
It is tough for states to innovate when the feds are sucking up all the money. Have the states get say 1/3rd of the federal tax revenue and let the states decide if they want to spend it on health care or not having state level taxes/medicaid/food stamps/... might work. But again you would want to make sure the free rider problem can't happen.
ThanksObama wrote:
I don't really understand how the health care insurance system works but this convinces me the current one isn't working.
Only because it cost you a few hundred dollars.
Do you expect it to be free? Do you expect doctors to work for free? Buildings cost nothing to maintain?
Republicans have to fix this... How exactly? The last thing they proposed reduced costs by subsidizing insurance companies. The current Republican strategy is to force the insurance pool down to people who aren't sick.
You realize you're being charged so much because you're subsidizing all the indigent deadbeats who come in and never pay right?
Illiterati wrote:
You realize you're being charged so much because you're subsidizing all the indigent deadbeats who come in and never pay right?
This is one of the things that people are missing when they complain that single payer would force us to pay for other people's expenses. You already are!
And the current system makes the bills of the indigent even more substantial because they have to wait until their condition is an emergency. Paying for ongoing diabetes management would be cheap. Paying for a foot amputation is not.
Illiterati wrote:
You realize you're being charged so much because you're subsidizing all the indigent deadbeats who come in and never pay right?
Uncompensated care was about 85 billion.
Health care costs: 3.2 trillion
yes the OP is being charged to cover deadbeats (i.e. or as republicans call them heros who are exercising their rights to not buy healthcare :)) but we are talking about a small percentage. Less than things like billing overhead for example
How much does the machinery of modern healthcare cost? Years ago you went to your family Dr. and there was very little he could do. Single payer universal coverage is the only way to pay for the marvels of modern technology that we have access to. Its inevitable.
just stay healthy wrote:
Obamacare sucks and whatever becomes Trumpcare will suck too.
The whole thing is broken.
Then what is YOUR solution? Anybody can come on a forum and spout off that Obamacare sucks and that the Republican answer to healthcare will "suck too." But yet I don't see crass people like you offering any alternative to the ACA or the GOP alternative. 🤔
Here's one place all that money is going that would go away with single payer.
already are wrote:
Illiterati wrote:You realize you're being charged so much because you're subsidizing all the indigent deadbeats who come in and never pay right?
This is one of the things that people are missing when they complain that single payer would force us to pay for other people's expenses. You already are!
And the current system makes the bills of the indigent even more substantial because they have to wait until their condition is an emergency. Paying for ongoing diabetes management would be cheap. Paying for a foot amputation is not.
Bingo!
xcvxcvxc wrote:
Trumpcare means 23 million out of insurance. Obamacare allowed for those to get insurance and subsidized insurance for many, while providing for Medicaid coverage from the states. Unfortunately, too many Republican states, including big ones like Florida and Texas, were content to let their millions go uncovered when the Feds were paying for the Medicaid expansion. The costs of the system and insurance long predate Obama, who only helped moderate the costs and make far fewer go bankrupt and allowed people with pre-existing conditions--which the companies were making extend to vast #'s of people--to get coverage without being bankrupted. The system as a whole is horrendous. It requires a vast shakeup that Republicans aren't approaching in any way and which Democrats in the past didn't have the stomach to do. Single payer is just the start of it. 24/7 staff in emergency rooms is somehow affordable through Europe but not here. Go figure.
Just give everyone who isn't a freaking multi-millionaire the same sweet healthcare plan that our illustrious Congress has. Our freaking TAXES pay for their plan...and salary, so what's good enough for Congress should be good enough for the rest of us!!!
This situation (expensive emergency room visits) has been around long before Obama was in office so don't blame him for it. AHA was an attempt to control some of those costs but the "health care" (i.e. financial health of medical industry) and insurance companies got their hooks into the bill right from the start and even before. Other than the banking industry, one of Obama's early supporters when he ran for President was the insurance industry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take on Obama Care is the insurance companies wanted to pump up profits so they wanted a law in place to mandate everyone to have health insurance (no matter how crappy) and even if the cost was low they (insurance industry) would go for volume over margin. Then the whole thing spiraled out of control and ended up a Frankenstein monster.
Keep in mind that when the emergency room demands huge amounts for simple treatment, it is a negotiating ploy for dealing with the insurance companies, a prelude to haggling.
Long before Obama wrote:
This situation (expensive emergency room visits) has been around long before Obama was in office so don't blame him for it. AHA was an attempt to control some of those costs but the "health care" (i.e. financial health of medical industry) and insurance companies got their hooks into the bill right from the start and even before. Other than the banking industry, one of Obama's early supporters when he ran for President was the insurance industry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take on Obama Care is the insurance companies wanted to pump up profits so they wanted a law in place to mandate everyone to have health insurance (no matter how crappy) and even if the cost was low they (insurance industry) would go for volume over margin. Then the whole thing spiraled out of control and ended up a Frankenstein monster.
Keep in mind that when the emergency room demands huge amounts for simple treatment, it is a negotiating ploy for dealing with the insurance companies, a prelude to haggling.
There's some truth in this. I've worked in healthcare for almost 30 years now. I've worked in provider, insurance and facility settings. By far, the insurance industry has the most waste and inefficiencies. If I were in charge, this would be the first health care area I'd address.
seikosha wrote:
By far, the insurance industry has the most waste and inefficiencies. If I were in charge, this would be the first health care area I'd address.
And it's the insurance industry that goes laughing all the way to the bank...who would have thought? And I'm sure our illustrious Congress isn't going to do anything with these greedy insurance companies, they haven't before...imagine that. Congress receives a top-notch sweet healthcare plan compliments of the tax payer...why would they give a crap about the peasants?
I had an eye-opening experience in Sweden. My daughter badly twisted her ankle on a hike and we had to go to the local ER. Very similar story to the OPs, only in Sweden.
My wife was born in Sweden, so she speaks Swedish, which made everything easier.
We walked in. Registered in less than two minutes. Got an x-ray (no fracture) and a nurse applied a cast. Out of there in 30 minutes. It felt very much like going to a police station or City hall. Their job is to help you, but they want you in and out quickly. They don't make money off you, so they just do what's necessary. Not worrying about lawsuits probably helps.
It really seemed like the big difference was that there was no middle man. That doctor's job was to keep things rolling in that small town, like the cop or the guy who grants building permits at city hall.
I bet the doctor's note about my daughter was five lines long, if there even was a note. Notes are for insurance companies, just like all the forms you have to fill out and all the hoops the hospital jumps through to get payment. Every unnecessary test is done to make he insurance company pay more.
After that experience, I have been firmly in favor of a single-payer system.
Half Swedish wrote:
I had an eye-opening experience in Sweden. My daughter badly twisted her ankle on a hike and we had to go to the local ER. Very similar story to the OPs, only in Sweden.
My wife was born in Sweden, so she speaks Swedish, which made everything easier.
We walked in. Registered in less than two minutes. Got an x-ray (no fracture) and a nurse applied a cast. Out of there in 30 minutes. It felt very much like going to a police station or City hall. Their job is to help you, but they want you in and out quickly. They don't make money off you, so they just do what's necessary. Not worrying about lawsuits probably helps.
It really seemed like the big difference was that there was no middle man. That doctor's job was to keep things rolling in that small town, like the cop or the guy who grants building permits at city hall.
I bet the doctor's note about my daughter was five lines long, if there even was a note. Notes are for insurance companies, just like all the forms you have to fill out and all the hoops the hospital jumps through to get payment. Every unnecessary test is done to make he insurance company pay more.
After that experience, I have been firmly in favor of a single-payer system.
^This. Unwavering belief that the "free market" can solve all problems in akin to a religion. For folks that buy into that belief system it is clear ideology over facts and reality. Single payer is the way to go.
Half Swedish wrote:
I had an eye-opening experience in Sweden. My daughter badly twisted her ankle on a hike and we had to go to the local ER. Very similar story to the OPs, only in Sweden.
My wife was born in Sweden, so she speaks Swedish, which made everything easier.
We walked in. Registered in less than two minutes. Got an x-ray (no fracture) and a nurse applied a cast. Out of there in 30 minutes. It felt very much like going to a police station or City hall. Their job is to help you, but they want you in and out quickly. They don't make money off you, so they just do what's necessary. Not worrying about lawsuits probably helps.
It really seemed like the big difference was that there was no middle man. That doctor's job was to keep things rolling in that small town, like the cop or the guy who grants building permits at city hall.
I bet the doctor's note about my daughter was five lines long, if there even was a note. Notes are for insurance companies, just like all the forms you have to fill out and all the hoops the hospital jumps through to get payment. Every unnecessary test is done to make he insurance company pay more.
After that experience, I have been firmly in favor of a single-payer system.
This is a compelling story. You make some good points. However, I wonder where health care innovation comes in. We in the US want new and better treatments every year. Does that happen in a single payer system? (I'm not being rhetorical, I'm honestly asking).