Jump to content
merrill

In reality no ones taxes will be raised because the money saved on taxpayer funded single payer insurance will more than offset so a NEW tax may be set for Single Payer Insurance yet consumers will be paying less for health care = big $$$ savings!

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, laton said:

 

You are just crediting private for denying coverage and only accepting the healthiest young enrollees and still can't justify the high administrative costs of private...

False. You’re a liar. You’re trying to claim 10 to 20 times more cost won’t affect administration costs based on the total cost of healthcare?? ?????????

 

2. pre-existing is just that. Do you wreck your car and then go to the insurance company to sign up to get it fixed? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet BadBreath won't also admit the trauma created by provider networks which would go away in MFA 

 

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are supposed to believe the marketing ads executive salaries football stadiums and campaign contributions of private with your health dollars saves you money. 

 

LOL at BadBreath!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, laton said:

Bet BadBreath won't also admit the trauma created by provider networks which would go away in MFA 

 

 

LOL

Willie. You got caught lying.

 

Answer the question. What would the  percentage of private Insurance administrator be if you multiplied the cost of healthcare by 10 or 20? 😂

 

You lied! Or you never got a math degree....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, laton said:

We are supposed to believe the marketing ads executive salaries football stadiums and campaign contributions of private with your health dollars saves you money. 

 

LOL at BadBreath!!!

Compared to 60 billion in fraud alone.

 

Yes. Private insurance is more efficient and cheaper to administer than Medicare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DeepBreath said:

Willie. You got caught lying.

 

Answer the question. What would the  percentage of private Insurance administrator be if you multiplied the cost of healthcare by 10 or 20? 😂

 

You lied! Or you never got a math degree....

 

1 minute ago, laton said:

We are supposed to believe the marketing ads executive salaries football stadiums and campaign contributions of private with your health dollars saves you money. 

 

LOL at BadBreath!!!

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laton said:

 

 

LOL

Notice how willie is refusing to answer the question. 
 

He knows he’s been bested. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeepBreath said:

Then stop complaining about something you don't even use.

I do use healthcare.   You’re not even making sense anymore.

Quote

Unnecessary? You ever try and negotiate your own prices with healthcare?

No, bcus you can’t negotiate your costs under this model.  That’s sort of the point.

Quote

Using your logic, we don't need to government to administer healthcare either. 🤣 

Huh?  Our reps would actually be getting paid to represent the people for a change.

Quote

 

Idiot....

Business just doesn't add jobs......There would have to be a huge increase in demand for different insurance businesses to get these people employed.

What are you talking about?

Quote

You're basically an economic illiterate. 

I don’t even know how to respond to your rhetoric any longer.  Its mostly just incoherent diatribe of folly & elementary insilts.

 

Then again, quite on brand for a dude w/ a clown profile.

Quote

Huh? You've never actually priced several different insurance plans, have you? 

Good luck getting comprehensive coverage w/ anything under a couple hundred dollars a month AT LEAST.

Quote

Why would you think the government would be any different?

Bcus the constituents would hold them accountable, just as our founders intended.    
 

We don’t like the job they’re doing , we have a method of replacing them.

Quote

You do realize private insurance actually follows Medicare when it comes to coverages?

Conflation.  Under a MFA model, it would be comprehensive.   The reason privatized insurance is largely terrible is bcus of the pool.  There are only X amount of people in your company to leverage.  Under a MFA model, the pool is the country.

Quote

I don't have healthcare through the government and I prefer not to be FORCED. 
 

Yes, we know.  

Quote

 

 

Medicare For All eliminates all private insurance.

Potentially.   Depends on the plan.

Quote

What do you think will happen to healthcare costs when there is no competition to keep prices down?

There is no competition now.  Its merely private vs. private.  
 

We don’t exist in a private vs. public impasse.

Quote

What do you think will happen to your costs when medicare manages 40 million Americans but loses 60 billion a year in FRAUD alone?

Fraud will largely be nullified bcus more ppl are in the pool.  
 

*Side:  Hospital administrations will not be null & void bcus of a different model.    It is the job of a Hospital to discern what is an emergency vs what is either a frivolous or a trivial matter.

Quote

How about the fact the government costs more to administer healthcare than private insurance? 

Right wing Koch Bros study disproved this about a year.   
The more bodies in the pool, the cheaper the expenses.  

 

The less bodies in the pool, the less leverage you have - the higher the premiums, deductibles, meds, etc...

Quote

None of us would save anything. Warren for instance wants to jack up employer paid payroll taxes by 20 TRILLION for instance.

You could actually just cite her for example...

 

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition

Quote

None of what you mentioned will DECREASE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE......

Of course it would.  Staying w/ the privatized, for-profit modem is why we currently pay the highest prices for the least substantive care in the world.

Quote

There's two ways you decrease the cost of an economic commodity. 

 

A. Increase supply

 

B. Lower demand

MFA is popular - demand.

 

As you remove the numerous tentacles of the for-profit modem of healthcare, you can then start to “supply” care from the large pool of candidates who pay into a system leveraged against millions rather than maybe dozens or a few hundred.   

Quote

 

Your idea does the exact opposite and so did Obamacare which is why healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control....

The ACA has its issues for a myriad of reasons, not bcus it was instituted by a democrat.  If you care to deep dive into that, I’m happy to indulge.

Quote

Take an economics course, kid. 

done & done.  
 

The irony of this statement is not lost on me.

 

Good evening, clown. 🤡 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merrill said:

In reality no ones taxes will be raised because the money saved on taxpayer funded single payer insurance will more than offset. 

 

This BS has nothing to do with BS argument that 150 million have a vested interest in the medical insurance industry scam on America. No health care coverage will be lost under the single payer insurance coverage.

 

What will be lost is boat loads of campaign money.

 

There are 8 lobbyists per elected official in this mess. There are tons of misinformation scams being perpetrated in this mess.

 

Both lobbyists and misinformation scams are being funded with health care dollars.

 

The industry has been known to blow $1.4 million dollars a day to save their multi trillion tax dollar subsidized guaranteed profit system.

 

This misinformation money was funneled through the US Chamber of Commerce.

 

A multi trillion $$$$$ scam!!!

 

== 8 lobbyists per elected official = expensive mouthpieces

 

== Misinformation campaigns @ $1.4 million health care dollars a day

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html

 

Yes folks we in America are being duped by the industry and some elected officials.

 

Next some extra added attractions:

 

== Healthy humans seldom spend what they pay out to the insurance industry!

 

== Consumers are charged billions in overcharges aka have you received your refund yet? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

 

== Politicians as shareholders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

 

A multi trillion $$$$$ scam!!!


You’re probably right Merrill. Countries with public health insurance spend far less for better outcomes. The government can probably save most people a lot of money if there is legislation to put an end to drug companies buying politicians. 

 

My concern in the short term is that it may be difficult to convince people to give up their health insurance for an unknown. A public option might be the only feasible first step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jrock2310 said:

I do use healthcare.   You’re not even making sense anymore.

No, bcus you can’t negotiate your costs under this model.  That’s sort of the point.

Huh?  Our reps would actually be getting paid to represent the people for a change.

What are you talking about?

I don’t even know how to respond to your rhetoric any longer.  Its mostly just incoherent diatribe of folly & elementary insilts.

 

Then again, quite on brand for a dude w/ a clown profile.

Good luck getting comprehensive coverage w/ anything under a couple hundred dollars a month AT LEAST.

Bcus the constituents would hold them accountable, just as our founders intended.    
 

We don’t like the job they’re doing , we have a method of replacing them.

Conflation.  Under a MFA model, it would be comprehensive.   The reason privatized insurance is largely terrible is bcus of the pool.  There are only X amount of people in your company to leverage.  Under a MFA model, the pool is the country.

Yes, we know.  

Potentially.   Depends on the plan.

There is no competition now.  Its merely private vs. private.  
 

We don’t exist in a private vs. public impasse.

Fraud will largely be nullified bcus more ppl are in the pool.  
 

*Side:  Hospital administrations will not be null & void bcus of a different model.    It is the job of a Hospital to discern what is an emergency vs what is either a frivolous or a trivial matter.

Right wing Koch Bros study disproved this about a year.   
The more bodies in the pool, the cheaper the expenses.  

 

The less bodies in the pool, the less leverage you have - the higher the premiums, deductibles, meds, etc...

You could actually just cite her for example...

 

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition

Of course it would.  Staying w/ the privatized, for-profit modem is why we currently pay the highest prices for the least substantive care in the world.

MFA is popular - demand.

 

As you remove the numerous tentacles of the for-profit modem of healthcare, you can then start to “supply” care from the large pool of candidates who pay into a system leveraged against millions rather than maybe dozens or a few hundred.   

The ACA has its issues for a myriad of reasons, not bcus it was instituted by a democrat.  If you care to deep dive into that, I’m happy to indulge.

done & done.  
 

The irony of this statement is not lost on me.

 

Good evening, clown. 🤡 

Says she took an economics course and claims Medicare is popular which would increase demand.....😂

 

What happens when you increase demand for a product or service with supply staying the same? 
 

You’re a liar. You’ve never taken an economics course. You don’t even know the simplest of economic concepts. 
 

She said the millions of Americans losing their jobs can just get jobs in other insurance fields.... Not with demand staying the same....

 

Two instances where it’s clear you do not understand supply and demand.

 

You lied, chick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:


You’re probably right Merrill. Countries with public health insurance spend far less for better outcomes. The government can probably save most people a lot of money if there is legislation to put an end to drug companies buying politicians. 

 

My concern in the short term is that it may be difficult to convince people to give up their health insurance for an unknown. A public option might be the only feasible first step. 

It won't work. Obamacare was such an option and it didn't work very well.

 

The left wing think tanks know without adding everyone to the risk pool the healthy cannot subsidize the unhealthy.

 

What we learned with Obamacare is that if you were sick or had a condition you signed and if you weren't you didn't.

 

That system was broken the day it was implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DeepBreath said:

Says she took an economics course and claims Medicare is popular which would increase demand.....😂

 

What happens when you increase demand for a product or service with supply staying the same? 
 

You’re a liar. You’ve never taken an economics course. You don’t even know the simplest of economic concepts. 
 

She said the millions of Americans losing their jobs can just get jobs in other insurance fields.... Not with demand staying the same....

 

Two instances where it’s clear you do not understand supply and demand.

 

You lied, chick. 

🤣🤣🤣 Typical.   you’re completely focused (which is on brand for trolls) on the wrong things.  You’re worried about the poor insurers while ignoring the benefits MFA.  
 

You’re the kind of person concerned about the tics on a dog more than the dog.  The  lice on a child more than the child.
 

Insurers are well adjusted people who can find work doing other things.  They’ll be okay.  You seem far more concerned about the prospects of bloodsucking insurance agents than the millions of people seeking affordable, manageable, comprehensive care.  
 

Now, as trolls do, we enter the rabbit hole of irrelevant/immaterial rhetoric of ... “YOU SAID THEY WOULD GET JOBS SELLING CAR INSURANCE!   YOU LIED!  NOT WHEN DEMAND ... blah blah blah”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, merrill said:

A note that demonstrates how Socialism Can Reduce the Cost of Capitalism Thus Improving Our Levels of Expendable Income Thus Improving Our Quality Of Life

 

 Funds for other health related demands will be cut thus ALLOWING THESE TAX DOLLARS TO BE FUNNELED INTO Medicare Single Payer Insurance COOKIE JAR:

 

Medicare Insurance  as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Medicaid Insurance as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Native American health care Insurance funding as we know it now will no longer be necessary


Social Security Insurance Health Care Funds as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Health Care Insurance for All of those on Capitol Hill as we know it now will no longer be necessary = HUGE SAVINGS

 

Health Insurance Coverage for higher education employees as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Health Insurance Coverage for public education employees as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Health Insurance Coverage for local municipal (City Hall) as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Health Insurance Coverage for local County Level Employees as we know it now will no longer be necessary

 

Health Insurance Coverage for the VA employees and Disabled Soldiers as we know it now will no longer be necessary HUGE SAVINGS

 

All of the above demonstrate the large number of tax dollars that can be moved into the Medicare Single Payer Insurance Pool and spent more effectively and efficiently !

 

Psst...numbnuts. All those things are currently funded by our taxes and those programs have operating expenses that exceed funding.  If you more the program funding to Medicare, you also have to more their expenses under Medicare.  You just increased the existing cost of Medicare and the operational deficit.  Sadly, you are too stupid to understand that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jrock2310 said:

🤣🤣🤣 Typical.   you’re completely focused (which is on brand for trolls) on the wrong things.  You’re worried about the poor insurers while ignoring the benefits MFA.  
 

You’re the kind of person concerned about the tics on a dog more than the dog.  The  lice on a child more than the child.
 

Insurers are well adjusted people who can find work doing other things.  They’ll be okay.  You seem far more concerned about the prospects of bloodsucking insurance agents than the millions of people seeking affordable, manageable, comprehensive care.  
 

Now, as trolls do, we enter the rabbit hole of irrelevant/immaterial rhetoric of ... “YOU SAID THEY WOULD GET JOBS SELLING CAR INSURANCE!   YOU LIED!  NOT WHEN DEMAND ... blah blah blah”

No. I see first hand what the government does to healthcare. 😂

 

I’ll take my chances with the private sector. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olivaw said:


You’re probably right Merrill. Countries with public health insurance spend far less for better outcomes. The government can probably save most people a lot of money if there is legislation to put an end to drug companies buying politicians. 

 

My concern in the short term is that it may be difficult to convince people to give up their health insurance for an unknown. A public option might be the only feasible first step. 

It definitely has to be incremental.  You can't just pull the rug out from under an industry that big.  The whole economy would probably fall apart.  This is why Warren has long advocated an approach that takes several steps to move towards a MFA-type solution.  She supports MFA, but how do we get there?  Roll out an alternative and then feed it.  The only way to make the change in one fell swoop would be to nationalize the entire industry, turn the government into some sort of autocratic controlled economy China-style, and lock it down that way to keep it from falling apart.  Otherwise, I don't think you can just replace a behemoth like the health insurance industry overnight.  It's too big.  It would crater the whole economy.

 

That said, I'm all in favor of starting the transition.  Yes, ultimately, the jobs in the insurance company will go away, though some of them will be replaced by jobs in the new public option bureaucracy.  Those that are not replaced because they are dead weight (which is the whole point), will have to be transitioned into other industries.

 

The only other option to clear out the waste, the corruption, the dead weight in our current system, is to combine ending the anti-trust exemption, ending the laws requiring treatment be provided with or without payment, and end all regulations of the 80/20 kind, which link profits to the size of the market, rather than to efficiency and outcomes.

 

Then people can buy from truly competing insurance companies, and they will have an incentive to operate most efficiently while still achieving good outcomes.  The down side, of course, is that you'll have people dying in the streets, too.

 

Sounds...um...great???  But that's how a competitive market has to work, right?  People have to be free to choose between competitors, and the most efficient and best performers will win in the marketplace.  Which just demonstrates how absurd that whole premise is.  When you need healthcare you don't function like a consumer.  And our current system is so hyper-regulated to the benefit of the behemoth insurers and hospital corporations and drug companies that nothing like a free market exists at all.  And just letting people die on the streets is insanity and would probably destroy the country.  It's obviously a utility, not a competitive marketplace, and we should transition to that model like the rest of the world as intelligently as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire purpose of single payer is to fund health care through taxes instead of insurance reimbursement and direct spending.  So now to say that we'll be able to have single payer without the taxes just makes proponents look like complete fools.  Let's not try to play word games and go into denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jrock2310 said:

Insurers are well adjusted people who can find work doing other things.  They’ll be okay.  You seem far more concerned about the prospects of bloodsucking insurance agents than the millions of people seeking affordable, manageable, comprehensive care.

 

The fact that you actually believe the people working in the health insurance industry will simply vanish and all will be relieved of duty is somewhat an admission of ignorance on your part.  You must not know what they actually do, and/or assume they actually literally don't do anything except collect a paycheck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, merrill said:

In reality no ones taxes will be raised because the money saved on taxpayer funded single payer insurance will more than offset. 

 

 

WHAT a LOAD of BULL !!

 

Every estimate about how much a "single Payer" system will cost is into the MANY TRILLIONS of DOLLARS !!

 

Either we PAY for it, OR it becomes an ever rising and MORE unmanageable pile of DEBT... that if it permitted to go un addressed, will cause the entire American financial system to collapse... as ALMOST happened in 2009, so DON'T try to tell us it's impossible !!

 

I'm actually wondering if THAT is EXACTLY what the Democrats WANT to happen... because IF that happens, it COULD WELL result in the Federal Government taking over EVERYTHING.. under some EMERGANCY pretense.. and THAT would be the END of our Democratic Republic... and the beginning of the U.S. SOCIALIST Republic !!

 

We can NOT permit that to happen !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for the $2500 in savings obama promised me. No one will save a cent. Taxes will rise. Jobs will be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kfools said:

It won't work. Obamacare was such an option and it didn't work very well.

 

The left wing think tanks know without adding everyone to the risk pool the healthy cannot subsidize the unhealthy.

 

What we learned with Obamacare is that if you were sick or had a condition you signed and if you weren't you didn't.

 

That system was broken the day it was implemented.

 

 

The ACA was not a public option. It was a marketplace and a set of rugulations.  The personal mandate solved the issue of people refusing to participate. Republicans were unable to repeal or replace the ACA so they assaulted the personal mandate in an attempt to break it. Even that failed, the ACA is still more popular than the free for all that existed before it. 
 

Universal single payer is probably the best solution but it may need to wait. People worry when you tell them that they will lose their existing coverage. That is why the public option is a good next step, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

The entire purpose of single payer is to fund health care through taxes instead of insurance reimbursement and direct spending.  So now to say that we'll be able to have single payer without the taxes just makes proponents look like complete fools.  Let's not try to play word games and go into denial.

What's my bottom line?  Do I pay more, or do I pay less?  

 

No, I didn't ask you about taxes.  I asked you about my bottom line.  Will I pay more, or will I pay less?  Just answer the question.  Just answer the question.  Only use the words I choose, or you're playing word games.

 

People who try to play word games and pretend it matters whether my healthcare dollars go to taxes or to Blue Cross, when all I really care about is how much I spend and my outcomes, just make themselves look like complete fools.

 

Tiresome right-wing shill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, splunch said:

What's my bottom line?  Do I pay more, or do I pay less?  

 

No, I didn't ask you about taxes.  I asked you about my bottom line.  Will I pay more, or will I pay less?  Just answer the question.  Just answer the question.  Only use the words I choose, or you're playing word games.

 

People who try to play word games and pretend it matters whether my healthcare dollars go to taxes or to Blue Cross, when all I really care about is how much I spend and my outcomes, just make themselves look like complete fools.

 

Tiresome right-wing shill.

 

 

Dr. Splunch,

You are treating the symptom......but not the disease.

You are just shifting the cost over to the tax-payer without solving the problem

of our H/care industry being 10 times more expensive than all the other countries.

I/2 of this nation does not pay into the Treasury Dept.  They don't care how much an

operation is.....so long as the gov.(tax-payer) pays for it.  Are you one of those

people in that boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, splunch said:

It definitely has to be incremental.  You can't just pull the rug out from under an industry that big.  The whole economy would probably fall apart.  This is why Warren has long advocated an approach that takes several steps to move towards a MFA-type solution.  She supports MFA, but how do we get there?  Roll out an alternative and then feed it.  The only way to make the change in one fell swoop would be to nationalize the entire industry, turn the government into some sort of autocratic controlled economy China-style, and lock it down that way to keep it from falling apart.  Otherwise, I don't think you can just replace a behemoth like the health insurance industry overnight.  It's too big.  It would crater the whole economy.

 

That said, I'm all in favor of starting the transition.  Yes, ultimately, the jobs in the insurance company will go away, though some of them will be replaced by jobs in the new public option bureaucracy.  Those that are not replaced because they are dead weight (which is the whole point), will have to be transitioned into other industries.

 

The only other option to clear out the waste, the corruption, the dead weight in our current system, is to combine ending the anti-trust exemption, ending the laws requiring treatment be provided with or without payment, and end all regulations of the 80/20 kind, which link profits to the size of the market, rather than to efficiency and outcomes.

 

Then people can buy from truly competing insurance companies, and they will have an incentive to operate most efficiently while still achieving good outcomes.  The down side, of course, is that you'll have people dying in the streets, too.

 

Sounds...um...great???  But that's how a competitive market has to work, right?  People have to be free to choose between competitors, and the most efficient and best performers will win in the marketplace.  Which just demonstrates how absurd that whole premise is.  When you need healthcare you don't function like a consumer.  And our current system is so hyper-regulated to the benefit of the behemoth insurers and hospital corporations and drug companies that nothing like a free market exists at all.  And just letting people die on the streets is insanity and would probably destroy the country.  It's obviously a utility, not a competitive marketplace, and we should transition to that model like the rest of the world as intelligently as possible.


excellent discussion. 
 

A utility is and great way to describe it. The health insurance market is not driven by normal competitive pressures. It is a highly regulated cost plus market. High costs are incentivized, which may explain why health care costs are so high relative to other countries. 
 

Yeah, time to stop spending two or three times as much for worse outcomes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Taipan said:

Dr. Splunch,

You are treating the symptom......but not the disease.

You are just shifting the cost over to the tax-payer without solving the problem

of our H/care industry being 10 times more expensive than all the other countries.

I/2 of this nation does not pay into the Treasury Dept.  They don't care how much an

operation is.....so long as the gov.(tax-payer) pays for it.  Are you one of those

people in that boat?

You forgot worse outcomes. We spend far more than other OECD countries but we trail in infant mortality, life expectancy and other measurable metrics. 

 

Mind you, there are people on your side of the fence who will cherry pick numbers and apply random formulas to prove that we are almost as good as countries that spend 70% less. They convince themselves but nobody else. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...