Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money - The New York Times

If Republicans want to repeal and replace Obamacare,then this is the way to go. Why must America insist on squeezing a profit out of everything, including assuring that we have access to quality healthcare? I'm a capitalist too, but healthcare access should be available to everyone without the devastation of horrendous expenses. Families should not have to go bankrupt if a family member contracts a catastrophic disease or condition.

Who would pay for this? We all would. And we all would reap the benefits. This can be done if we work together.

Originally Posted by Guest

If Republicans want to repeal and replace Obamacare,then this is the way to go. Why must America insist on squeezing a profit out of everything, including assuring that we have access to quality healthcare? I'm a capitalist too, but healthcare access should be available to everyone without the devastation of horrendous expenses. Families should not have to go bankrupt if a family member contracts a catastrophic disease or condition.

Who would pay for this? We all would. And we all would reap the benefits. This can be done if we work together.

At what cost? $12,000 a year PER citizen? That's $3,960,000,000,000...where do we come up with $4 trillion for healthcare alone? It takes over $1,000 a month for over 80 years to add up to the average $1,000,000 in healthcare used by the average person in a lifetime.

"The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.Nov 14, 2015"

"According to CMS (here) our National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) is projected to hit $3.207 trillion this year. The U.S. Population is currently hovering at around 320 million, so 2015 looks to be the first year healthcare spending will reach $10,000 per person.Jan 4, 2015"

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour

Originally Posted by Guest

At what cost? $12,000 a year PER citizen? That's $3,960,000,000,000...where do we come up with $4 trillion for healthcare alone? It takes over $1,000 a month for over 80 years to add up to the average $1,000,000 in healthcare used by the average person in a lifetime.

"The difference, however, between the No. 1 spender, the United States, and the No. 10 spender, Canada, is quite large. Canada spent 10.2% of its GDP on health care in 2013, which amounted to $4,351 per person, while the United States spent 16.4% of its GDP that year, amounting to $8,713 per person.Nov 14, 2015"

"According to CMS (here) our National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE) is projected to hit $3.207 trillion this year. The U.S. Population is currently hovering at around 320 million, so 2015 looks to be the first year healthcare spending will reach $10,000 per person.Jan 4, 2015"

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour

First of all, you quote RETAIL (because medical care right now is a for-profit business)

The actual COST of medical care can be compared with a very close neighbor which has a similar social civilization: Canada. The COST per person is estimated at an average of $4500/person. That is because the "socialized" medical system has used its group power to negotiate prices for things like prescription drugs (which is illegal for Medicare to do presently) and by standardizing the cost of tests and procedures.(i.e.: MRI of abdomen costs over $10,000 in some hospitals, and less than $3000 in others)

Currently I pay $1180/month for my medical insurance premiums. That is over $14,000/year. Under the plan that Bernie proposed, my cost per year would be about $6,000 per year through taxation. That is a savings of $8,000 per year (give or take). So, this is an economic issue, not a partisan issue.

Which would you want to pay?

Originally Posted by Guest

First of all, you quote RETAIL (because medical care right now is a for-profit business)

The actual COST of medical care can be compared with a very close neighbor which has a similar social civilization: Canada. The COST per person is estimated at an average of $4500/person. That is because the "socialized" medical system has used its group power to negotiate prices for things like prescription drugs (which is illegal for Medicare to do presently) and by standardizing the cost of tests and procedures.(i.e.: MRI of abdomen costs over $10,000 in some hospitals, and less than $3000 in others)

Currently I pay $1180/month for my medical insurance premiums. That is over $14,000/year. Under the plan that Bernie proposed, my cost per year would be about $6,000 per year through taxation. That is a savings of $8,000 per year (give or take). So, this is an economic issue, not a partisan issue.

Which would you want to pay?

I quoted Canada...you quoted Canada at the same price...so which is it? Retail or wholesale? Do you propose to take over ALL of healthcare with government provided doctors? Government owned clinics and hospitals? Government owned pharma?

I don't know boyer...you want to cut the cost by 1 1/2 X, is the quality of doctors going to go down by that much as well? It's already dropped a LOT due to lowered standards and quotas for minorities.

It's "illegal" for medicare to haggle prices because the people who run our government really work for the pharm companies. So of course the prices are set.

That $14,000 a year just covers the $ million you'll used in healthcare before you die. ANY lowering MUST be met with reduced costs. Reduced payments to hospitals, doctors, nurses...

It IS an economic issue...too many who don't/can't pay for "their share" getting it for free from those who DO/can pay. To carry the "non-working poor, you must DOUBLE or TRIPLE the payments by those who work to closer to $35,000 a year. It's borrowed right now to pay for the poors coverage.

Originally Posted by Guest

I quoted Canada...you quoted Canada at the same price...so which is it? Retail or wholesale? Do you propose to take over ALL of healthcare with government provided doctors? Government owned clinics and hospitals? Government owned pharma?

You mixed COST of medical care (in Canada) versus Premium cost(in USA) in your first post. The COST (doctor charges, hospital charges, prescription charges) is pretty much determined by the "market" in that particular area. So, a similar condition in one part of the country costs different than in another part of the country. See: Medical Costs Vary Wildly Around The Country : Shots - Health News : NPR

Most other countries have STANDARDIZED tests and procedures, and they have also negotiated drug costs, so their COSTS are lower than the charges in the US. Most western countries have as good or better outcomes as well. See:21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't know boyer...you want to cut the cost by 1 1/2 X, is the quality of doctors going to go down by that much as well? It's already dropped a LOT due to lowered standards and quotas for minorities.

Most doctors will get the "standardized" payment for their services (just like Medicare now) and I would like to see verifiable facts regarding your claim that the quality of doctors has dropped a LOT due to lowered standards and quotas for minorities. That sounds like just a racist bigot rant.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's "illegal" for medicare to haggle prices because the people who run our government really work for the pharm companies. So of course the prices are set.

Actually, the prices are NOT set, the pharm companies have the ability to charge and/or increase the prices on any and all of their medications.....recent examples are the EPI-pen, and many others: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew.../#30d9cba871f5
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/the-d...ort-shows.html

Originally Posted by Guest

That $14,000 a year just covers the $ million you'll used in healthcare before you die. ANY lowering MUST be met with reduced costs. Reduced payments to hospitals, doctors, nurses...

If you reduce the $14,000 by taking it out of insurance companies' hands, their expenses incurred in advertising, administration, CEO enormous salaries, dividends to stockholders, makes the REAL COST closer to the $6000/person/year that it has been estimated for people in the USA.
By paying the $6,000 through taxation, because of the graduated tax structure of the US, some people will automatically pay less because of their incomes, while others will pay more, but the savings is real.

Originally Posted by Guest

It IS an economic issue...too many who don't/can't pay for "their share" getting it for free from those who DO/can pay. To carry the "non-working poor, you must DOUBLE or TRIPLE the payments by those who work to closer to $35,000 a year. It's borrowed right now to pay for the poors coverage.

You are correct that it is an economic issue, but your analysis of the non-working poor, is in error. Non-working poor would use Medicaid which is separate....

Why would anyone believe a single payer plan controlled by the government will provide quality care at reasonable prices given the government long history of dismal failures? The same people who demand a guaranteed income proposed by the government.

Medicaid alone is drowning all of us in deep debt and these hair brained schemes continue unabated. Apparently these proponents ignore Margaret Thatcher's admonition that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of using other people's money to wit Venezuela Greece, etc

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Why would anyone believe a single payer plan controlled by the government will provide quality care at reasonable prices given the government long history of dismal failures? The same people who demand a guaranteed income proposed by the government.

Medicaid alone is drowning all of us in deep debt and these hair brained schemes continue unabated. Apparently these proponents ignore Margaret Thatcher's admonition that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of using other people's money to wit Venezuela Greece, etc

Personal Best Regards:

Apparently, successes like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and others are not among those countries that happen to be closer to our society, but you mention failures that cannot be at all comparable. Facts of your claims about Medicaid need to be seen to substantiate your claim, but since you have none, like most Trumpsters, keep ranting away.....what medications are you on?.jpg

one benefit would be to be in the 11 month old in England situation!

Originally Posted by Guest

one benefit would be to be in the 11 month old in England situation!

and in the USA there was Karen Ann Quinlan.....

there will always be incidents of health care failure no matter what system is in place

Originally Posted by Guest

You mixed COST of medical care (in Canada) versus Premium cost(in USA) in your first post. The COST (doctor charges, hospital charges, prescription charges) is pretty much determined by the "market" in that particular area. So, a similar condition in one part of the country costs different than in another part of the country. See: Medical Costs Vary Wildly Around The Country : Shots - Health News : NPR

Most other countries have STANDARDIZED tests and procedures, and they have also negotiated drug costs, so their COSTS are lower than the charges in the US. Most western countries have as good or better outcomes as well. See:21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous - The Washington Post



Most doctors will get the "standardized" payment for their services (just like Medicare now) and I would like to see verifiable facts regarding your claim that the quality of doctors has dropped a LOT due to lowered standards and quotas for minorities. That sounds like just a racist bigot rant.



Actually, the prices are NOT set, the pharm companies have the ability to charge and/or increase the prices on any and all of their medications.....recent examples are the EPI-pen, and many others: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew.../#30d9cba871f5
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/the-d...ort-shows.html



If you reduce the $14,000 by taking it out of insurance companies' hands, their expenses incurred in advertising, administration, CEO enormous salaries, dividends to stockholders, makes the REAL COST closer to the $6000/person/year that it has been estimated for people in the USA.
By paying the $6,000 through taxation, because of the graduated tax structure of the US, some people will automatically pay less because of their incomes, while others will pay more, but the savings is real.



You are correct that it is an economic issue, but your analysis of the non-working poor, is in error. Non-working poor would use Medicaid which is separate....

No I didn't, it was the average spent per person per country.

Blah blah blah...you're talking out of your a$s...you don't know any of that.

It's government provided healthcare...it's being paid for by WORKING people and increased federal debt. It's part of the $4 trillion a year spent on healthcare.

Originally Posted by Guest

Apparently, successes like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and others are not among those countries that happen to be closer to our society, but you mention failures that cannot be at all comparable. Facts of your claims about Medicaid need to be seen to substantiate your claim, but since you have none, like most Trumpsters, keep ranting away.....Attachment 70274

ALL of them being white countries...full of productive white people, NOT non-productive leeching minorities. The SUCCESSFUL countries are once again...white.

Name me ANY successful black/brown country...

Originally Posted by Guest

No I didn't, it was the average spent per person per country.

Blah blah blah...you're talking out of your a$s...you don't know any of that.

It's government provided healthcare...it's being paid for by WORKING people and increased federal debt. It's part of the $4 trillion a year spent on healthcare.



ALL of them being white countries...full of productive white people, NOT non-productive leeching minorities. The SUCCESSFUL countries are once again...white.

Name me ANY successful black/brown country...

Don't need to.....Don't need to substantiate an intelligent position that is factually supported to a racist moron

6Billionfor Jets not healthcare.jpg

Originally Posted by Guest

Apparently, successes like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and others are not among those countries that happen to be closer to our society, but you mention failures that cannot be at all comparable. Facts of your claims about Medicaid need to be seen to substantiate your claim, but since you have none, like most Trumpsters, keep ranting away.....Attachment 70274

Au contraire we are not Germany, Netherlands Norway, sweden........you forget that Americans who demand free stuff demand a lot of it. people in Denmark or Canada do not run to the doctor for every ache and pain. it would be a waste of time to debate the quality of care permitted in the aforementioned .

Again look at medicare, medicaid, VA. Prices and services had to be drastically cut and many doctors refuse to accept medicaid patients today. do you believe our vets are getting good care? do you not accept that fraud and abuse in these programs is running rampant?

Obamacare threw the baby out with the bathwater. the truly uninsured could have been provided a catastrophic program . No Obama aim was to control 1/6th of the economy and he and Graber knew Obamacare would fail and a single payer plan was i the offering.

Graber makes a public announcement that the America people were too stupid to see what Obama was doing and what do progressives do when given this news...applaud geezzz

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Attachment 70277

National Defense is a Constitutional mandate. Health Care is not.

Who ties your shoes for you?