Politics Thread

[Caf]

The US is not a place for those who work for the benefit of others. If you'd like that I suggest you move to Venezuela or North Korea since you like extreme examples (tribal Africa...).

Great logical points, considered me convinced. Bravo. You sir are a true scholar.

[paulxu]

I am amazed out how we overlook the real world.
Other countries through decades of work, have discovered how to give ALL their citizens basic health care coverage.
Sure, each of them has challenges they work through daily, just like our sort of hodge podge system.

But they decided to make it single payer and non-profit. And it has proven to work.
Reminds me often of how our auto industry refused for years to acknowledge Toyota was building better cars for less, and at a higher level of quality.

So when we talk about costs going up as we try to cover more of our people, we overlook that those other countries do if for far, far less.
We should be talking about costs going down.

[Caf]

We should be talking about costs going down.

Oh we already did. You must have missed Juice's writings.

Less government oversight. Tax deductions for health care spending. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

[GoMuskies]

But they decided to make it single payer and non-profit. And it has proven to work.

This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

[SemajParlor]

Personally, I think you guys have found your own Benghazi. BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! RUSSIA!

We doing odds for impeachment? How about +450?

[boozehound]

I don't see what one person overpaying his obligation would accomplish. It's not like it would change policy.

One thing that I think often gets lost in the healthcare debate is the fact that the amount we pay in premiums is substantial to the average American, and could cover a modestly large increase in income taxes, particularly for middle income Americans.

Consider the following: My health insurance costs about $500 per month for an 80/20 PPO plan. My company has pretty good insurance and shares a good portion of the cost, so I don't pay as much as many others, but let's use that $500/mo as a benchmark.

If you make $240K per year that $500/mo amounts to 2.5% of gross monthly income ($20,000/$500). It's a pretty small percentage that isn't likely to be significant to that person't budget. Now let's say that you make closer to (but slightly above) the average income at $60K. Now that $500 monthly premium is 10% of your gross monthly income. That's pretty significant.

In that scenario average Americans could incur a 10% increase in income taxes and still net out neutral. A 10% increase would be MASSIVE, and I'm certainly not advocating for that, but I think it's an interesting data point when people complain about taxes, but then fail to consider other obligations that would be reduced / erased.

Personally, I'm OK with paying a couple of extra points to cover health care for those less fortunate than me. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but that is my perspective. I also believe there is a significant pooled risk benefit to single payer that would substantially reduce costs, as well as a benefit from increased preventative care. I also don't believe in the current 'healthcare lottery' in which people who have been doing everything right have a child come down with cancer and are bankrupted.

I do believe in the value of competition, and I believe that being poor should be substantially worse than being wealthy. Society needs competition, and in many cases people need to be uncomfortable to truly push them to better themselves. I just happen to believe that healthcare should be exempted from that.

I would be willing to pay 10%, if I was spending 10% of my gross on health insurance, absolutely. I used my finances as the example for the 2.5% figure, so that would quadruple my monthly healthcare expenditure. I don't think anyone would experience that kind of increase under single payer, though. I would be willing to double from 2.5% to 5% though. I don't think I would miss that money all that much, and I would absolutely be willing to pay it for universal healthcare. I'm not particularly concerned about the 'pursuit of happiness' impact of a couple hundred bucks a month for people making north of $200K. I just can't imagine a scenario in which that amount of money is highly material to many of those households.

We can play your game all the way down to zero. Who's to say that anyone should pay any taxes at all? Who are we to determine that? The reality is that we enter into a society to provide for the mutual good. If people want a truly no-holds-barred 'freedom' they can go to tribal Africa where you can do what ever you want as long as you have the ability and willingness to kill anyone who tries to stop you.

Great that you'd pay 10% more and the good news is you can. No one is stopping you. What's interesting is a 10% tax increase for a state run universal healthcare system was on the ballot out here in blue CO last fall. It failed miserably. So again what people say they want and what they personally are willing to do are two very different things.

The US is not a place for those who work for the benefit of others. If you'd like that I suggest you move to Venezuela or North Korea since you like extreme examples (tribal Africa...).

Can I ask you an honest question? What is your purpose in participating in this discussion? What value do you think it adds when you intentionally misstate people's arguments and then partially respond to them? Is there a comprehension issue coming in to play that prevents you from taking into account previous posts in your subsequent responses? What you are doing contributes nothing to the discourse and is disrespectful to people who take the time to formulate and communicate a thought-out argument.

I have previously stated that I don't see a value in anyone 'kicking in' 10% to the government 'just because'. It doesn't change policy, or actually provide for people.

I have also already articulated what I thought was a pretty clear example in which people might be paying an 'extra' 10% in taxes offset by a 10% reduction in healthcare costs, netting neutral. You responded that I can pay an extra 10% on top of my healthcare premiums, which is very clearly not what I have stated in any of the above posts. If I wasn't clear above I would be happy to provide additional clarification if requested.

I pretty strongly disagree with you last point, but I acknowledge your opinion. My primary reason for disagreeing is my belief that any time people enter into a society they (at times) work for the benefit of others. It mitigates their own risk, and is a fundamental building block of why people initially organized into societies at all. We can accomplish more working together than we can individually, and it benefits all parties. People who add more value (as society determines it) are compensated for that, but the healthy help the weak. The young help the old. The rich help the poor. It doesn't mean they all are (or should be) equal in how they are compensated and the level of luxury in which they live.

I'll grant you your last point as a response to my (admittedly hyperbolic) example of tribal Africa.

[boozehound]

This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

[ChicagoX]

This health care debate isn't a huge issue to me, so I've mostly stayed out of it, but are you not worried at all that taking the profit motive completely out of health care will stifle innovation? Even if other countries have managed to do that over the years, the U.S. has always been operating as we have (warts and all) and providing many innovations that are used worldwide in the medical field. It seems plausible (to me) that removing profit motive in the medical field would discourage research, experimentation, etc.

But I also may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

This is why I think a public option is better than single-payer. Allow low-income people to have access to affordable healthcare options through the government since insurance companies clearly don't want to cover them. This will allow people to still get insurance plans through their employer and pay a premium for the best plans if that's what they want and can afford. The profit motive is still there and insurance companies won't have to concern themselves with the low-income people they have no desire to insure due to lack of profitability.

The problem is that a lot of people don't know the difference between a public option and single-payer and think they are the same thing.

[Masterofreality]

This is probably my biggest concern with single-payer. I don't want to lose our innovation, but I believe we can structure a system that allows us to keep our edge. I also think the alternative is healthcare becoming almost inaccessible over the next 30-ish years if we don't do something material to reform the system.

Consider the following though:

1 - You don't have to completely remove the profit motive to have a single payer system. You can create a 'Medicare for all' type of approach above which Doctors can charge rates above what single-payer covers. People can pay the difference out of pocket, or even purchase supplemental insurance to cover it if they so choose. This is how many retiree health care programs work in the United States today. Once you are Medicare eligible Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your company's retiree benefits become secondary.

2 - The United states has shown the ability to do some pretty cool things without a direct profit motive. Hell, we got a man on the moon in the 1960's.

1 is exactly what Lovely wife and I decided to do. We are now eligible & signed up for Medicare parts A (hospitalization) and B. We are also doing a supplemental policy for Parts D (drugs) and G (replaces F) that covers the deductibles & co-pays. We're paying an extra premium over the standard Part B cost, but it locks in our annual cost with no surprises or limits. If we wanted to gamble that we'd have no medical issues we could get a cheaper policy but would have to risk high deductibles & much higher co-pays at 20%.

Many in other "single payer" countries like Ireland for example, also have available policies that get them a higher level of care faster. One of the bargaining chips that one of our Irish B & B hosts (a member of the Irish Garda (police)) was using in contract negotiations was that they would have a "Cadillac" policy available to them in lieu of a pay increase to expedite and enhance their medical care.

[GoMuskies]

we doing odds for impeachment? How about +450?

benghazi!!!!!