LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Ron`]

That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.

Do you disagree that cutting the insurance companies out of the process would make the health care system more efficient?

Not if we are replacing that with administration by the Federal Government... Nothing is more wasteful....

[Ron`]

That's a pretty bold statement since it is historically proven that the Federal government wastes up to 30% of every dollar in on administrative costs, and ie employee payroll or benefits... I just can't see the government being less wasteful. If they are and actually make it profitable, they will raid the excess just like they have done forever with social security in the boom years.

Do you disagree that cutting the insurance companies out of the process would make the health care system more efficient?

Insurance will never go away. All we can do is change what they insure.

The only way to guarantee insurance goes away is to provide unlimited care to anyone in any situation for free.

Exactly, that is the other part of what the politico's aren't telling you. That you will still have to purchase additional bridging insurance to maintain your same standard of care coverage if you have care, should you desire ....

[MWB]

right... there will always be insurance tho.

But is everyone paying insurance companies and paying for those inefficiencies the same as a small portion of the people doing so for supplemental insurance? My point, very simply, is that it could be a way to reduce health care costs significantly.

I'm pretty sure that there will still be the same number of people paying for it. Pretty much everyone here who works has supplemental insurance. And it's actually more common for people here to have supplemental insurance even if they don't have an employer plan.

While many have it, it would seem that the amount spent on it is much, much less than what we spend here currently.

Although many Canadian citizens have supplemental private insurance from their employers, this covers non-medically necessary expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare, and accounts for only 12% of national health care spending

[MWB]

Exactly, that is the other part of what the politico's aren't telling you. That you will still have to purchase additional bridging insurance to maintain you same standard of care coverage should you desire ....

The politicos aren't really saying anything about a single payer system right now, so it's hard to say what kind of insurance would be needed to bridge the gap.

[MWB]

I'm pretty sure that there will still be the same number of people paying for it. Pretty much everyone here who works has supplemental insurance. And it's actually more common for people here to have supplemental insurance even if they don't have an employer plan.

What is the supplemental insurance used for? In other words, what types of things are not covered in the single payer system there?

[Ron`]

Look if you have coverage right now it will likely be still less out of your pocket than it will be to get the government plan and bridge it via private coverage. You will be paying for everyone that currently isn't covered. When the costs of that government plan increase, your costs will increase even faster percentage wise. What can't be justified in immediate increases will be passed off as tax increases. Anyone that believes that this plan can be floated without further tax increases immediately is kidding themselves. Let alone going forward in the future.

It's like the second law of thermodynamics, (reference the definititon of entropy), there are no free lunches... someone will be paying the tab and it's going to be the current working class.... Once the Federal government gets it's hands on it, a even huger entropy factor will be injected too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MWB]

This is an explanation of how a single payer system could be funded:

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

[bhaw]

MWB... that is a joke... first off, it implies that a government run system... by the current government in place... would actually be cheaper for everyone. That's what that article is saying and it's a complete joke. If that were true, it would be in place already.

[Ron`]

The people pushing this have no intention of accepting this plan as their own. If you think government employees, which comprise a huge part of that 60% number you quoted, are going to reduce their existing coverage and then have to bridge out of pocket to maintain coverage, I have some wetlands that need to be sold. Good investment, but not legally ever able to do anything with them.

Their coverage will be the last sacred cow and there has been no discussion of them taking this plan.

[MWB]

MWB... that is a joke... first off, it implies that a government run system... by the current government in place... would actually be cheaper for everyone. That's what that article is saying and it's a complete joke. If that were true, it would be in place already.

As I said, I'm just new to researching this. Instead of just saying it's a joke, why not site what specifically is wrong with the system that is proposed.

[bhaw]

If the US government can provide me with full coverage for medical, dental, eye, hospital, etc for 2% of my income (if you make 75k, that's $75) and get rid of my premiums... saving me roughly $2K or so per year in heath insurance costs AND reduce the payroll tax on corporations, go for it man.

I'm not sure how they plan to do more with less, but go for it.

[DelPen]

MWB... that is a joke... first off, it implies that a government run system... by the current government in place... would actually be cheaper for everyone. That's what that article is saying and it's a complete joke. If that were true, it would be in place already.

As I said, I'm just new to researching this. Instead of just saying it's a joke, why not site what specifically is wrong with the system that is proposed.

Because 60% of the money in the system is being used on 27% of the population. And this is with the government paying 70% of the bills due most of the time. Reform the current government systems first and when that's done we can talk about expanding.

[Ron`]

Additionally yes health care would come off the bargaining table initially, but guess what much like already exists in canada employers would have to offer bridging coverage as part of their employment packages to retain skilled people. So we go right back to where we are currently in that aspect....

[bhaw]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

[Ron`]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

Yeah, my employer is going to immediately increase my wages by the amount saved via his health care contributions..... I think not...

[MWB]

The people pushing this have no intention of accepting this plan as their own. If you think government employees, which comprise a huge part of that 60% number you quoted, are going to reduce their existing coverage and then have to bridge out of pocket to maintain coverage, I have some wetlands that need to be sold. Good investment, but not legally ever able to do anything with them.

Their coverage will be the last sacred cow and there has been no discussion of them taking this plan.

The people pushing this are Physicians for National Health Program and American Medical Student Association. I'm not saying that any politicians have discussed this plan. I'm wondering if it should be something on the table instead of what's there now.

[bhaw]

The people pushing this have no intention of accepting this plan as their own. If you think government employees, which comprise a huge part of that 60% number you quoted, are going to reduce their existing coverage and then have to bridge out of pocket to maintain coverage, I have some wetlands that need to be sold. Good investment, but not legally ever able to do anything with them.

Their coverage will be the last sacred cow and there has been no discussion of them taking this plan.

The people pushing this are Physicians for National Health Program and American Medical Student Association. I'm not saying that any politicians have discussed this plan. I'm wondering if it should be something on the table instead of what's there now.

It makes more sense than what's there now, that's for sure.

[MWB]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

Here is the link to the full text:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron`]

The people pushing this have no intention of accepting this plan as their own. If you think government employees, which comprise a huge part of that 60% number you quoted, are going to reduce their existing coverage and then have to bridge out of pocket to maintain coverage, I have some wetlands that need to be sold. Good investment, but not legally ever able to do anything with them.

Their coverage will be the last sacred cow and there has been no discussion of them taking this plan.

The people pushing this are Physicians for National Health Program and American Medical Student Association. I'm not saying that any politicians have discussed this plan. I'm wondering if it should be something on the table instead of what's there now.

[MWB]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

It's saying that companies would be paying less for health care, not saying where that extra money would go.

[MWB]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

Yeah, my employer is going to immediately increase my wages by the amount saved via his health care contributions..... I think not...

This is where debate gets frustrating.... nowhere in what I posted did it say that an employee's wages would go up because of this.

[bhaw]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

Here is the link to the full text:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The idea is fine... the "facts" are skewed.

What they are proposing cannot be funded by those numbers provided in any world I could realistically think of.

They are literally saying that it will cost the average insured person a fraction of what they pay right now. And large corporations will be paying less in taxes. That would automatically have it on the table, you'd think. The heavy hit ones will be small businesses tho.

[bhaw]

I don't know who wrote that, but they seem to be imply that it will increase wages as well based on the last few sentences.

What a perfect idea... somehow give medical coverage to more people using less money, saving people thousands in insurance premiums AND increasing wages... sounds like a recession breaker and totally feasible

Yeah, my employer is going to immediately increase my wages by the amount saved via his health care contributions..... I think not...

This is where debate gets frustrating.... nowhere in what I posted did it say that an employees wages would go up because of this.

The way they wrote it, they are getting at it. Clearly to make it sound better. They were just smart and didn't specifically state it so that they can say "We never said that." Read the last few lines again... it all but says that. Saying benefits will be pulled off the bargaining table for employment implies that now employers will have to put their money where their mouth is.

Again, it doesn't directly say it, but that's what they are trying to get at so people say "Wow! Great idea!"

[Ron`]

I'll tell you where that money will go... to pay increased taxes to the federal government on the same businesses that keep people employed. It's not going to the people that are employed and it's not going into the profit margin. The costs of health care increases for many years now have been passed on to the employee in the public sector. For government jobs it has been passed on to the taxpaying base. They aren't going to buy into this new plan anymore than most did for social security. Many government jobs do not pay into social security either, did you know that? A system they created and stole from for years, but never were obligated to participate in....

[bhaw]

Edit... last few lines of 2nd to last paragraph... sorry.