If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[dblack]

Means testing for social programs adds an enourmous cost to these programs. For one Canadian child care program, conservatives demanded a means test. It was found that it would be cheaper to give the money to ALL who applied, than it would be to pay for the additional administration costs of the application review means test, as well as staff needed to police income levels and revoke coverage if the recipients income increased.

But American conservatives keep ladling on expensive administration costs, the most expensive and ludicrous of which is drug testing for welfare recipients. Florida spent over $1 million flagging welfare recipients for drug testing and performing the tests. Savings to the taxpayers - less than $200,000. Spending $1 million dollars to save $200,000 is penny wise and pound foolish.

Taxpayers are out of pocket an additional $800,000 over the amount they would have spent leaving well enough alone.

This is why I oppose earned income credits. It would be cheaper to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour than to collect payroll taxes from workers, review each tax return to determine who qualifies for EIC's and send that money back to them.

Ditto food stamps. Give the poor higher wages. Stop using EIC's for fast food and retail workers and pay a bit more for your hamburger. Better a quarter out of your pocket now than $1 added to your tax bill later.

Conservatives scream about social programs, but manage to make them as inefficient and expensive as possible.

Yep. And that's exactly what's happening with health care.

 

[Dragonlady]

Means testing for social programs adds an enourmous cost to these programs. For one Canadian child care program, conservatives demanded a means test. It was found that it would be cheaper to give the money to ALL who applied, than it would be to pay for the additional administration costs of the application review means test, as well as staff needed to police income levels and revoke coverage if the recipients income increased.

But American conservatives keep ladling on expensive administration costs, the most expensive and ludicrous of which is drug testing for welfare recipients. Florida spent over $1 million flagging welfare recipients for drug testing and performing the tests. Savings to the taxpayers - less than $200,000. Spending $1 million dollars to save $200,000 is penny wise and pound foolish.

Taxpayers are out of pocket an additional $800,000 over the amount they would have spent leaving well enough alone.

This is why I oppose earned income credits. It would be cheaper to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour than to collect payroll taxes from workers, review each tax return to determine who qualifies for EIC's and send that money back to them.

Ditto food stamps. Give the poor higher wages. Stop using EIC's for fast food and retail workers and pay a bit more for your hamburger. Better a quarter out of your pocket now than $1 added to your tax bill later.

Conservatives scream about social programs, but manage to make them as inefficient and expensive as possible.

Yep. And that's exactly what's happening with health care.

The for-profit private health care insurance program you have skims 20% of your insurance premiums off the top. If you pay $10,000 for your health insurance, you're only paying $8,000 for health care and $2,000 to have your insurance company hassle you on claims. This isn't improving your care, it's adding to your stress.

Dealing with insurance companies for pre-approvals also adds to costs for doctors and hospitals. An American friend - a registered nurse, worked for a doctor obtaining treatment approval from insurance companies. That was all she did all day long. What a waste of money and talent.

A third of hospital administration workers, work on billings and pre-approvals. Doctors hire third party billing companies to collect insurance payments and copays. Another waste of money.

In Canada, we have supplemental health insurance, usually paid for by employers, or purchased through work. These policies cover the things government funded health care doesn't cover ie semi-private hospital rooms, eye glasses, some types of physio therapy like massage, prescription drugs, and dental. These plans cost about $2500 per year for family coverage.

One large firm I worked for had a "self-funding" program. Instead of buying a supplemental insurance policy from Manulife, they put the amount of the premium into a bank account and paid employee claims from that account. They hired Manulife to administer the account, and paid them a fee to process claims. With a staff of 800, our firm saved $100,000 per year.

Private health care insurance for all is the most expensive, inefficient system you could possibly have picked.

 

[Markle]

So again, your view is that healthcare should only be available to those who can pay the going rate for it.

And the rest should go without.

Where did anyone say they anyone should go without?

 

[Markle]

The for-profit private health care insurance program you have skims 20% of your insurance premiums off the top. If you pay $10,000 for your health insurance, you're only paying $8,000 for health care and $2,000 to have your insurance company hassle you on claims. This isn't improving your care, it's adding to your stress.

And you believe that if the government writes the checks, the overhead is LESS? You're living on a strange planet!

Foolish to say you get only $8,000. of health care for having paid $10,000. Just foolish.

For decades I paid $200-300-400-600-800 a month plus for my HMO coverage. I loved my doctor and received excellent service and care. However, over those 30 or so years, I never used more than 10% of what I paid. Now I'm on Medicare and opted for Medicare Advantage which kept me with the same HMO and doctor. Now my cost for Medicare Advantage is about $200.00 a month, I'm not sure. In the past two years, my benefits have paid close to $100,000.00, I have paid about $3,000.

Being that most older folks like me have that much in health care, how do you expect the government to maintain that rate of expenditures? Who is going to pay? For me, I'll be dead before the piper comes to collect so it will not be my problem.

You demand that "free" care comes from someplace and you have no clue as to who should pay or how.

 

[Markle]

In Canada, we have supplemental health insurance, usually paid for by employers, or purchased through work.

Yes, in Canada you have supplemental health insurance since the initial single payer from your government failed. Initially private medical services were not permitted and everyone was forced to use government doctors. Since then your Supreme Court overturned that provision allowing private doctors. Which is now available on a cash basis to whom? The poor or the wealthy?

In addition, you must be aware of the extraordinary, extensive waiting lists for specialists. In addition, you know that our hospitals, US hospitals along our entire Northern border are crammed with Canadians seeking immediate care. You must also be aware that women with difficult pregnancies are sent to the US for care since you don't have the facilities available. Many times the families cannot join the women because they do not have visas.

Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2015 Report

How do Canada's hospital wait times fare with other countries?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So again, your view is that healthcare should only be available to those who can pay the going rate for it.

And the rest should go without.

Where did anyone say they anyone should go without?

Anyone who believes their tax money shouldn't go to pay for someone else's healthcare, for starters.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Who should go without?

Anyone who can't afford privatized healthcare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who should go without?

Anyone who can't afford privatized healthcare.

See? You people who keep pretending no one wants the poor to go without, read the above post and all the others like it in this thread.

 

[Markle]

OK, you tell us.

We eliminate Medicaid and all the other healthcare programs designed to help low income people afford healthcare -

with that done, you explain how that has NO negative consequences on access to healthcare in America.

Who has said to eliminate Medicaid and all other healthcare programs designed to help low-income people?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, you tell us.

We eliminate Medicaid and all the other healthcare programs designed to help low income people afford healthcare -

with that done, you explain how that has NO negative consequences on access to healthcare in America.

Who has said to eliminate Medicaid and all other healthcare programs designed to help low-income people?

Are you trolling for a specific reason? Read the fucking thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, you tell us.

We eliminate Medicaid and all the other healthcare programs designed to help low income people afford healthcare -

with that done, you explain how that has NO negative consequences on access to healthcare in America.

Who has said to eliminate Medicaid and all other healthcare programs designed to help low-income people?

Are you speaking for all conservatives with that concession that even conservatives consider socialized medicine a good thing?

 

[Boss]

Anyone who believes their tax money shouldn't go to pay for someone else's healthcare, for starters.

Why is it that you think my money, that I worked for and earned, should be used to pay for your health care? I've never understood this. I don't work to pay for your shit! I work to pay for MY shit! I provide for MY family! I don't expect you to pay for my shit.

 

[Markle]

It doesn't happen now due to the socialism of emergency health care.

Do you know the meaning of the word Socialism? Perhaps you should look it up?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Who should go without?

Anyone who can't afford privatized healthcare.

See? You people who keep pretending no one wants the poor to go without, read the above post and all the others like it in this thread.

I don't really care if "the poor" go without. Nobody is entitled to another person's possessions, that includes money. If someone can't hold a job, it's on them.

 

[Markle]

It has to do with the, "government sponsored socialism of equality". The private sector has no profit motive to ensure, equality.

It is impossible to have equality. Who rations health care?

lol. it should be based on need, not income.

Nonsense.

Health care is a commodity, like anything else. If I want and can afford a superior health insurance plan than you, why should I not be entitled to receive the benefits of those higher premiums?

I know that in your fantasy world, everyone who wants or needs a kidney, lung or heart transplant is entitled to receive one at minimal cost.

 

[Markle]

Are you speaking for all conservatives with that concession that even conservatives consider socialized medicine a good thing?

Then they are uninformed, aren't they?

 

[Markle]

Isn't capitalism wonderful, right wingers.

 

[Markle]

All the people who complain about the government taking their money in taxes and giving it to someone else want Medicaid eliminated because that is EXACTLY what Medicaid does.

A far superior system for Medicaid is to give the states block grants and allow them to decide how best to use those funds. That rewards the state for being efficient. As it stands today, states are rewarded by the number of people they add to the Medicaid rolls. So they are rewarded for fraud and inefficiency. Which is the best solution?

 

[Markle]

A basic for all would replace almost all of the poverty programs.

Specifically how?

It is economically impossible. Something far beyond your comprehension.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you track the size of government, under both Clinton and Obama, the number of government employees shrunk. Under Bush I and Bush II, as well as Reagan, the size of government grew.

So much of this growth isn't due to government programs, as much as it is the administration of government programs. Means testing, distribution and rules governing the programs are expensive.

Take the rules about what food stamp recipients can buy. There is this paternalistic notion that the poor make bad decisions about where to spend money, so the have to have their expenditures monitored and governed. At what cost?

The same with drug testing for welfare recipients. Despite the numbers which show that it costs States far more to test for drugs than they save by cutting off drug users, more states are signing on for this. Conservatives LOVE drug testing.