[ETWolverine]

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

Actually, according to the CBO, the cost of administration of health care by the government would be anywhere from 3-5 times the cost under private health insurance. (The Heritage Foundation says that's a low estimate, but we'll use it anyway.)

Furthermore, the government actually pays 35% more for health care than private insurance companies do.

Add the costs of eliminating competition, shortages of equipment and service providers, the number of doctors LEAVING the practice of medicine, longer waiting times, longer times out of work while you wait to be treated, etc. and your costs are now over 500% higher than in private health care.

Sorry, NK, but your statement is incorrect.

The way to lower health care costs is not to nationalize it, but rather to open up COMPETITION by allowing portability. Instead of having a choice between 2 or 3 insurance companies in a state, there will be roughly 1600 insurance companies competing for your business in EVERY state.

The way to lower health care costs is to make the costs pre-tax... thuse creating an immediate savings of 30% or more.

The way to lower health care costs is to have tort reform similar to what we have seen with the "medical malpractice panels" in Texas. These panels review every medical malpractice suit filed in the state of Texas. If they determine that the case has merit it moves forward. If they determine that the case has NO merit and is frivolous, the case is rejected. This system has lowered malpractice insurance costs by something like 60%, decreased the number of cases in the court system, decreased the amount of "defensive medicine" being practiced and increased the number of practicing medical doctors in Texas by 7500 in two years. Due to the lower medical malpractice insurance costs, malpractice premiums have decreased, resulting in lower overhead for doctors. This has resulted in medical costs for individuals dropping as well, due to fewer defensive medicine tests and lower fees charged by doctors. Also, competition between doctors has increased with the influx of new practitioners. There has been an across-the-board decrease in medical costs of something like 20% - 30% in the past two years in Texas. Medical costs are lower, the doctors have a more inviting environment in which to practice with lower overhead and fewer malpractice hassles, and the people are getting a better deal for their dollar and a bigger choice of health care providers.

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurrence is way too rare.

Elliot

[Synnen]

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurence is way too rare.

Elliot

You had me nodding my head until this.

Please--the ONLY places that a TRULY free market, with no government oversight have EVER worked is in developing countries, in the 70s and 80s---and ONLY under a government of terror.

And the ONLY people it benefitted, in the long run, were those that were ALREADY wealthy. Do some research into the Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friendman--and into their involvement in South America in the 60s and 70s. A COMPLETELY free market isn't the answer--all that does is make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and eliminate the middle class.

I have no problem with government interference in the system to either make it more affordable, or to make it more humane (required coverage by insurance companies, for example, even with a pre-existing condition). What I have a problem with is that our government has proven itself to be inept at running ANYTHING in the last oh... 40 years.

As far as costs being lowered for medical insurance--even living paycheck to paycheck, that's taken out of my check before I even see it. I also have REALLY good coverage for about $10 a paycheck. Granted, that's subsidized by my employer, but with no "pensions" anymore, that's where companies can make themselves more appealing to prospective employees. I know more than one person who chose between jobs based on the benefits package.

Someone posting before me also posted stats about people who are living paycheck to paycheck. The FOLLOW UP question to that is "How many perks and unnecessary toys have you eliminated from your budget?" Bet most of those people living paycheck to paycheck still have cable, a cell phone, a new-ish car, broadband internet, and eat lunch out at least once a week.

[NeedKarma]

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt. Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already? The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

I do want you to prove the "500%" number though.

[inthebox]

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

What are the income tax rates in Canada?

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

[paraclete]

What are the income tax rates in Canada?

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

I think we would all like to know that. And by the way we pay much less than Americans in Australia and we have universal health care

[NeedKarma]

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?

Actually I'm not sure I'd know how to break that down. But one thing I can tell you is that Canadians still seem to contribute to their rRSPs, take vacations, have a savings account and aren't all over this forum asking questions about being in serious credit trouble.

[speechlesstx]

R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.

I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.

Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

Doctors won't leave the practice? Isn't Canada having a boom in private clinics?

[NeedKarma]

I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.

I don't want my health being decided on by the free market. Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

[excon]

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

What's the difference?? Oh, I know what the Wolverine says, but it makes no sense.. He says they'll pay a LOT of money because they want to keep their customer happy so they can sell more insurance...

Ordinarily, the free market DOES work that way... But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes...

I don't know WHY that doesn't scare you. Especially when you pretend that the bureaucrat is going to be a prick, but YOUR insurance adjuster is just a fine fellow... Nope, righty's, it don't make no sense.

excon

[NeedKarma]

And I don't want to be like this guy: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health...ey-399373.html

I realize that you guys have only known that kind of system and I've only known my system but it certainly makes me understand all the crazy medical questions on this board if I had to worry about a $1500 deductible.

[speechlesstx]

Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

Then what's your point? If we're to comparing apples to apples it would seem your input on our health care is irrelevant.

[ETWolverine]

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.

And nothing actually gets developed.

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.

It ain't a "scare tactic" NK. It's reality.

Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

Just because we have a shortage of doctors (which we actually DON'T have... what we have is a shortage of doctors in certain specialties) doesn't mean they won't leave anyway.

And we already posted the poll that SHOWED that 45% of doctors currently practicing medicine would consider quitting their practices and leaving medicine entirely if healthcare is nationalized. So please don't tell me it can't happen... the doctors are ALREADY considering it.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

Which two "think tanks" are you talking about. I'm citing the Congressional Budget Office.

And the fact that Medicare is paying roughly 35% more than private insurance comes from two sources. One was the comments by the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf. The other is from the Jeffry Anderson at the Pacific Research Institute.

In fact, according to Anderson, the annual per-patient costs paid by Medicare and Medicaid in the 1970s used to be $344 per patient, compared to $364 in the private sector. That was a $20 savings. Today the Medicare & Medicaid annual per patient cost is $8,955, compared to $7,119 in 2008. That means that the government is paying $1,836 more per patient than private insurance... or 26% more per patient. And that's DIRECT costs... it doesn't take into consideration the INDIRECT costs.

I do want you to prove the "500%" number though.

That's easiest of all... I don't even need to cite a study or poll. It's simple math.

The government doesn't pay for just one workforce. Thanks to union contracts with SEIU (the DNC's single largest contributor, by the way) and AFSCME, the government is required to pay pensions that are nearly full salary for anyone who has worked in government for 20 years or more, regardless of their age, for the rest of their lives. Plus they must also cover their medical insurance and that of their families.

What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300% of what they would be in the non-union private sector.

Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees. This is especially true in the government-employee unions. (Less true in blue-collar unions, but it still happens there too.) The unions see this as a method of increasing or maintaining their membership dues... if the employee stays where they are, they lose nothing. If the employee gets promoted, they see an INCREASE in dues. Ditto if an employee leaves the agency to work elsewhere.

The point is that this results in massive OVER-EMPLOYMENT in government agencies. They always have more people than they actually need to do the work. (Just take a look at your local Department of Motor Vehicles if you don't believe me, and see how many people are sitting around doing nothing or reading their newspaper or playing solitair on their computers while others do the work.)

This causes increased employment costs to the agency... after about a decade, the over-employment costs can rise as high as 100%... meaning twice as many people employed as are actually needed. After two decades, that number will be 200%, because of the pension rules I discussed before.

So... the "immediate" (within 10 years) cost increase of government health care over private insurance would be about 300% (3 sets of salaries) and increasing to 500% thereafter (due to over-employment caused by union contracts).

And none of this even takes into consideration government waste... the fact that the government is just simply an inefficient body that wastes money on $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats. Government contracts ALWAYS overpay compared to the private market. I know this for a fact... I used to work in administration for a government hospital. My brother-in-law does contract law for a government-run hospital. The evidence of overpaying by the government for medical equipment, supplies, services, etc. is massive. A 35% difference doesn't even begin to cover it... it's an overly conservative estimate.

So... between paying 3 sets of salaries, overemployment by 100-200%, and massive waste, we're easily talking about a 500% increase in administrative costs.

The CBO agrees with this rough estimate. The Heritage Foundation, though, thinks that I'm being too conservative in my numbers and that the actuall increase will be MORE that 500%. Since the CBO has a habbit of underestimating, I think the Heritage Foundation is going to be closer to correct.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes....

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for? If they aren't going to pay claims they're not going to have customers.

Another aspect you guys miss is often the insurance company is our advocate with the provider. Twice this year alone - on claims totally roughly $4,000 - the insurance company is what stood between me and a provider trying to get me to pay a bill the insurance company denied because of the provider's screw-ups. Just last week a doctor's office tried to tell me a claim was applied to our deductible so we needed to pay the balance. Their problem is I actually read the EOB's and I know the policy. If they want their money they're going to have to correct their claim because I know I only owe a $25.00 copay at most for this $764 bill. The insurance company is on my side in this.

[excon]

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for?

Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying??

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

[NeedKarma]

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.

You can read about Health Canada here is you wish: Health Canada - Home Page

What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300% of what they would be in the non-union private sector.

I don't understand your math here. Pay them what exactly? What changed from the previous administration here?

Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees.

Can you show me the clause where it says this, that would be interesting.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.

I've been to the DMV. I've dealth with insurance adjustors. Guess which ones were easier to deal with. Guess which ones I got a better outcome from.

And I'll bet that you've had the same comparative experience as I had, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

That's why 80% of Americans say that they are satisfied with their current insurance system... because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office. That has been the collective experience of MOST PEOPLE IN THE USA.

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,

Game, set and match.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL! Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

[NeedKarma]

...because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office.

The doctor's office deals with the government health department not the individual.

[Synnen]

Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying???

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

So... by that logic, any special interest group that spends money on lobbying is up to something nefarious?

[excon]

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,

Hello again, El:

My FIRST experience with making a claim happened when I was a young lad. My father had just died, and I inherited ALL of his clothes. He was IN the haberdashery business in Beverly Hills, Ca, plus he was my dad and was a sharp dresser...

In any case, I put about 25 shirts, that I'm sure my dad paid $50 each for, into the local shirt laundry.. They got stolen.. The insurance company offered me $25 for all of 'em, and I've been getting ripped off by insurance companies ever since...

Yes, I had to wait. But at least I GOT a drivers license at the DMV.

excon