RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care

RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Only in America can people watch dozens of countries successfully use single payer for decades and still insist it can't be done. Where did those other countries start, compared to where we'll start? Google broken at your house? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare quote: Where are all those profits you'll squeeze out of the system? Who said anything about squeezing out profits? It's about effective universal health care. Ineffective if you can pay partial health care for profit is what we already have. Enjoy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:16:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Single-payer systems aren't "insurance". You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts. That's just semantics, which is why you put quotes around insurance. Taxes for single payer = premiums for insurance Government pays = insurance pays It's true that single payer systems cover more and with less of an out-of-pocket cost, but that doesn't really make it not, essentially, the same as insurance in the US. Sidenote: What is the employer NI rate? What is the employee NI rate?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Unless I'm wrong, my guess is that California will implement some form of mish-mash of an insurance-based system. Why?? Because most Americans can't grasp how any single-payer system works and can't wrap their heads round the concepts. Most seem to think it's a type of 'insurance' - but it isn't; the concepts behind it are very different. If you read the legislation, if CalCare (or whatever it's going to be called) covers something, there won't be any insurance company allowed to also cover it. The only things insurance will cover, are things that aren't covered by CalCare.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Australia and Canada. Socialised medicine. Part of the problem here is that you lot conveniently forget about the collusion in the medical industry. The costs of every good and service are vastly inflated because medicine has no competition in this country. In Australia, the government doesn't fuck about and let the medical community profiteer at patient's expense. Medicine is an essential service, not a product whose need for profit is driven by boards and shareholders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Australia Note, in particular, this little gem: "In an international comparative study of the health care systems in six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States), found that "Australia ranks highest on healthy lives, scoring first or second on all of the indicators", although its overall ranking in the study was below the UK and Germany systems, tied with New Zealand's and above those of Canada and far above the U.S. A global study of end of life care, conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, part of the group which publishes The Economist magazine, published the compared end of life care, gave the highest ratings to Australia and the UK out of the 40 countries studied, the two country's systems receiving a rating of 7.9 out of 10 in an analysis of access to services, quality of care and public awareness." So yes. It works and produces far better results than your overpriced, poorly performing disaster in the USA. I didn't deleted anything you quoted that your reply had to do with.... 1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that. 2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven. 3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best. 4. Where are the profits in the US health care system? 5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:39:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Only in America can people watch dozens of countries successfully use single payer for decades and still insist it can't be done. Where did those other countries start, compared to where we'll start? Google broken at your house? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare quote: Where are all those profits you'll squeeze out of the system? Who said anything about squeezing out profits? It's about effective universal health care. Ineffective if you can pay partial health care for profit is what we already have. Enjoy. So, it's only about effective universal health care, and not cost of effective universal health care?

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:41:13 PM)
If I have to explain the difference to you between squeezing out profits and managing effective costs in a public good, the conversation is not headed in any productive direction. Pass. Maybe someone else will play with you.

mnottertail -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Only in America can people watch dozens of countries successfully use single payer for decades and still insist it can't be done. Where did those other countries start, compared to where we'll start? Google broken at your house? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare quote: Where are all those profits you'll squeeze out of the system? Who said anything about squeezing out profits? It's about effective universal health care. Ineffective if you can pay partial health care for profit is what we already have. Enjoy. So, it's only about effective universal health care, and not cost of effective universal health care? you can have effective universal healthcare, and you can have cost effective universal health care, and you can have cost of effective universal healthcare. none, not one of those words do we have now. We have insurance.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:54:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery If I have to explain the difference to you between squeezing out profits and managing effective costs in a public good, the conversation is not headed in any productive direction. Pass. Maybe someone else will play with you. You only have to answer the question asked, MM.

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 1:56:57 PM)
Ron's got it. Play with Ron.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 2:26:38 PM)
I have tried to explain it to you many times Desi. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 1. It's cheaper in other countries. No one here is disputing that. But you are constantly disputing where those cost savings come from. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 2. No one can show that a country that switched to socialized medicine had costs drop. The only thing anyone can show, is that costs rose slower. So, thinking that costs are going to drop if only the US would switch to a socialized plan, is unproven. UK 1948 - The government unleased the NHS system. Medical costs plummeted and everyone was covered no matter who you were. No more profiteering by private doctors that only the rich could afford. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 3. Continuing to point out (what the Left does; this comment is not directed specifically towards you) that the socialized systems pay, roughly, 50% of what the US pays (overall) is disingenuous, at best. My best guess is that it's considerably LESS than 50% of what a typical US citizen would pay. There are many examples of where a socialised healthcare system caps costs that the US rip-off people. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 4. Where are the profits in the US health care system? With the insurance companies. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 5. I hope you realize that my only real beef with single payer, is the lack of Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to do it, and that I've already state many, many times, that I would support a Constitutional Amendment granting the authority to the Federal Government to provide a single payer health system for US citizens. Why would they need authority to do it Desi?? Just introduce it and for those that quailfy or pay into it - let them receive the benefits of the system. People will soon realise just how much better it is than insurance-based systems. As for the californian system... sounds to me like a parallel insurance-based system; it has all the hallmarks of one. In single-payer systems, you don't "claim" anything and it doesn't exclude people from using other systems if they so choose.

mnottertail -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 2:31:54 PM)
trivially the cost saving at the outset would come from moving insurance companies out of the equation and all that cost going to healthcare, and to negotiate drug prices at national levels.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 2:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail trivially the cost saving at the outset would come from moving insurance companies out of the equation and all that cost going to healthcare, and to negotiate drug prices at national levels. Yep. That's one of the cost savings. Not having investors and shareholders to pay for is another. Drug prices and equipment at national level is quite a big cost saving too. Add the savings in staff/consultant salaries is another. Desi can't seem to grasp the concept though. He always thinks in terms of insurance, which a completely different animal.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 2:48:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Single-payer systems aren't "insurance". You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts. That's just semantics, which is why you put quotes around insurance. Taxes for single payer = premiums for insurance Government pays = insurance pays It's true that single payer systems cover more and with less of an out-of-pocket cost, but that doesn't really make it not, essentially, the same as insurance in the US. Sidenote: What is the employer NI rate? What is the employee NI rate? Not semantics Desi. Taxes for single-payer have nothing to do with insurance. No insurance company is involved with single-payer systems. Nobody makes a profit like insurance-based systems do. Single-payer doesn't have investors or shareholders as part of it. The government pay the costs of treatment, not an insurance company. I'll repeat what I said - You have to get the notion of 'insurance' and the concepts behind it out of your thoughts. No, it's not 'insurance' under another name either; it's a completely different type of animal.

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:03:22 PM)
He means a) you go for health care and it's paid for b) that system is funded either through premiums or taxes Essentially, citizens are the de facto investors/share-holders, and the savings is their dividend. Yes, they are different. But in terms of services delivered, a similar input/output bottom line.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:04:22 PM)
The elephantS in the room, that have dropped out of the national discussion (Thanks to the insurance industry, liability lawyers, and for-profit hospitals), is the MASSIVE cost of the uninsured using emergency rooms as their personal care providers, where the hospitals make up their general operating deficit overcharging the insured or state covered indigent, from the below cost reimbursement by both health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid, huge drains on any public serving clinic. And the obscene costs of US Liability/tort law practices. You simply couldn't design a less helpful or more expensive health care system regulatory and compensation system than US tort law, with world leading Lack of timely delivery of living expenses, rehabilitation or justice to injured parties. Other countries who don't have to assign blame in hideously expensive trials, provide both timely rehab and necessary expenses for at most HALF the cost of the US system, which benefits only the lawyers, and heirs of the few tort winners. Payouts are years late, if ever, costs are crippling the medical delivery professionals in most fields, with many MD specialists paying 1/3 to over 1/2 of their Gross income for coverage against malpractice suits. My understanding is several specialities simply aren't graduating new doctors in the US. Med students look at the income, costs and both future and current earnings of those out in private or group practice, and they just won't go there. GP's and OB/Gyn are all coming from other countries, and mostly moving to working in institutions that cover the malpractice. The vanishing rural MD is far more serious of a situation in Trump country than what the combover plans to do to their health law. It doesn't matter what insurance or not, if there is no Doctor within driving distance.

PeonForHer -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:11:16 PM)
quote: For instance, the UK and US have such agreements as they do with the EU and many other countries. It doesn't seem that we do have any health agreements with the USA, FD - at least according to the UK government website - https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/usa/health The EHIC card gives us cover on the European continent - but there's a strong chance this will disappear after Brexit: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/785229/Brexit-EHIC-valid-Theresa-May-Article-50-health-insurance

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery He means a) you go for health care and it's paid for b) that system is funded either through premiums or taxes Essentially, citizens are the de facto investors/share-holders, and the savings is their dividend. Yes, they are different. But in terms of services delivered, a similar input/output bottom line. Not quite MM. There's a huge difference between a limited and negotiated cover for a fixed price premium and a single payment system. With insurance-based healthcare premiums, you get to choose which bits you want to pay for and which bits you don't want to include - not unlike house or car insurance and there's usually a choice of which company to go with. And of course, there is the choice of deductible levels to select too. Plus, those premiums are subject to the whim of the insurance company. In a single-payer system, there is no choice of cover - you are covered for everything and that cover provides you with medical cover in most of the civilised world. There are no deductibles to select because there is nothing to pay. There is no choice of providers either because the provider is the government and is always available on a nation-wide basis; which also means that every medical facility is available to you no matter where you are in the country. The cost (ie, the premiums) are a percentage of your earnings, not a fixed sum. As for service delivered? Chalk and cheese. With insurance-based systems, you can only get what you paid for (at exorbitant rates). With single-payer, you get everything.

Musicmystery -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:35:11 PM)
Actually, nothing you said there contradicts the points I made. Starting "yes, they are different," and in terms of service, "similar," not the same. Chalk and cheese? FFS. No. Not as different as that.

AtUrCervix -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Wonder how it is going to be paid for? http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562 quote: This bill, the Healthy California Act, would create the Healthy California program to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state. The bill, among other things, would provide that the program cover a wide range of medical benefits and other services and would incorporate the health care benefits and standards of other existing federal and state provisions, including, but not limited to, the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medi-Cal, ancillary health care or social services covered by regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities, Knox-Keene, and the federal Medicare program. The bill would require the board to seek all necessary waivers, approval, approvals, and agreements to allow various existing federal health care payments to be paid to the Healthy California program, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. This bill would also provide for the participation of health care providers in the program, require care coordination for members, provide for payment for health care services and care coordination, and specify program standards. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would develop a revenue plan, taking into consideration anticipated federal revenue available for the Healthy California program. The bill would create the Healthy California Trust Fund in the State Treasury, as a continuously appropriated fund, consisting of any federal and state moneys received for the purposes of the act. Because the bill would create a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation. California is an island unto itself. I have legislation currently proposed (through a lobbyist...myself and 5 other firms have paid for this) that will negate ridiculous legislation put forth by a legislator, who has received far too much cash from a major in our field, regards product design (that is cheaper on the front end) for blind and visually impaired that of course....meets "initial budgets" but....absolutely FAILS in fewer than 6 months in real world use....it's cheaper....on the front end....costing 10's times more over just 5 years to use....but...it's the law. Of course....they only mandate a "particular design" (which...natch...that firm controls via patent)...not (of course) an actual product. Guess who meets that criterion? One product. Money talks. Not value. Ergo...every municipality is forced to use it (hates it...gets sued for it...ergo...the suits get thrown back to the state...where the legislation emanates from)...California sucks. I wish I didn't have to sell in that state but...I do. And the 9th circuit...which supports this crap...is seated by morons. California is the biggest legislative fuck up on Earth. It's what I (and every manufacturer I know) calls...."the Free Money state". Bring enough coin to your preferred legislator....aaaaaand......you're in. Done. Signed.....go buy your private island. (Fuck the actual people living there....paying the cost).

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Cal SB 562 - Universal Health Care (5/1/2017 3:58:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Actually, nothing you said there contradicts the points I made. Starting "yes, they are different," and in terms of service, "similar," not the same. Chalk and cheese? FFS. No. Not as different as that. I beg to differ. You said earlier: Essentially, citizens are the de facto investors/share-holders, and the savings is their dividend That would be true for insurance-based systems. You aren't an investor or shareholder in the single-payer system. There are no AGM's and you have no say in what shapes the company/product or profit. If citizens had those savings as their 'dividend', they'd have some sort of choice where to put those savings and they don't. And as I said... with insurance-based systems, you only get what you paid for; nothing else. If something happens (eg, complications) that you aren't covered for, you're basically fucked. Single-payer systems cover everything, pretty much regardless of subsequent complications. And, generally, they are much cheaper to administer too. They are only similar to a point, a very short point. Beyond that, they are very dissimilar in funding, sourcing, organisation, and execution of their services. Chalk and cheese is about right; you can eat both but only one of them tastes good.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875