|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Sept 21, 2017 3:39:05 GMT
I want to see a budget estimate for universal healthcare. I would love to see an actual proposal with what costs would look like for all classes of people. I specifically work where I do because of the healthcare benefits and retirement benefits. I accept less income in exchange for good benefits. I am middle class. I spend about 5.2% of my gross income on healthcare premiums and my employer spends far more. Would I be willing to pay an extra 5.2% in taxes to have universal healthcare? Yes, I would. It would free me up also to consider other job opportunities where I might actually make more money. Do I think employers should also share in the burden of universal healthcare? Yes, I do. Just like they now contribute to my healthcare costs, I'd like to see all employers pay a percentage of their net income to be used for universal healthcare. I just wish a member of Congress would actually put together a proposal with budget estimates so I can feel like I am making an informed choice. I'm tired of the threats and rhetoric. If this passes, will it affect my healthcare? Probably not. Like I said, I have excellent coverage. But in order to get people like me who are most likely not affected by either Obamacare or this new bill o$3n board with change, we have to see an actual proposal with what it might mean for us. There are passionate people on both sides of the debate. Then there are people like me, who most likely won't feel the effects and therefore lack passion about it. If you want to sway us either way, you have to put the hard data out there. About $2.5 trillion a year. Bernie said $1.4 trillion, but others who looked at his Medicare for all plan estimated between $2.4 and 2.8 trillion. The total budget last year was $3.8 trillion and Medicare (which covers about 17.6 million seniors) was $612 billion. California looked at implementing universal coverage and the estimate for just California residents was $400 billion - which would double the state budget. Colorado actually put a bill on the ballot for universal coverage with a corresponding 2x tax rate hike - it was rejected. Knowing what the costs to individuals/families compared to what they are paying now would be more helpful. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:40:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 3:59:13 GMT
"Cassidy said that under his bill, in "states like Maine, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, there will be billions more dollars to provide health insurance coverage for those in those states who have been passed by by Obamacare." Two of those four states will see a temporary bump in funding before settling in for a longer-term decline, according to the Avalere study. But the other two states won’t ever see a funding increase under the bill, according to Avalere. Cassidy also glosses over the fact that these states chose to ignore the law’s offerings on their own. We rate the statement Mostly False."  www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/20/bill-cassidy/bill-cassidy-offers-misleading-defense-face-jimmy-/ |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:40:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 4:25:38 GMT
Reminder - current Medicare costs include profits for the providers in the system: pharma, hospitals, labs, clinics, tests... When considering single-payer costs it is important to understand if the analysis of the hypothetical single-payer system assumes for-profit health-care or not. If it does, of course it's going to be more expensive. The key is to implement single-payer AND non-profit care. Not Shkreli-type price gouging of needed medicine and care. Other findings in California: "A study of nine options for covering California’s seven million uninsured by the conservative D.C.- based consulting firm of Lewin, Inc found that a single payer system in California would reduce health spending while covering everyone and protecting the doctor-patient relationship. Three of the nine options analyzed by Lewin for their fiscal implications included single payer financing. 1.) A proposal by James Kahn, UCSF, Kevin Grumbach, UCSF, Krista Farley, MD, Don McCanne, MD, PNHP, and Thomas Bodenheimer, UCSF, would cover nearly all health care services including prescription drugs, vision and dental for every Californian through a government-financed system while saving $7.6 billion annually from the estimated $151.8 billion now spent on health care. 2.) A second proposal by Ellen Shaffer, UCSF- national health service- Would reform both financing of and the delivery system so that every Californian has a “medical home”, that is, a primary care physician with an ongoing relationship with that patient. Like the Kahn et al proposal, it saves about $7.5 billion through various efficiencies. 3.) The third by Judy Spelman, RN, and Health care for All, covers care for every Californian in a manner similar to the Kahn et al proposal but eliminates all out-of-pocket costs. Its cost savings are estimated at $3.7 billion. All three proposals stabilize the health care system, reduce paperwork, and protect the doctor-patient relationship by eliminating the role of for-profit HMOs and insurers. The Kahn et al proposal envisions that the not-profit Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest integrated health system, would continue." www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#insurance-overhead |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 21, 2017 15:28:10 GMT
"Loosens Obamacare's regulations regarding pre-existing conditions: The bill would also let states waive several key Obamacare protections for those with pre-existing conditions. While it would still require insurers to provide coverage to everyone, states could allow carriers to charge enrollees more based on their medical history. So younger, healthier folks could see their premiums go down, but sicker Americans could find themselves priced out of policies.
The legislation also would let states eliminate Obamacare's essential health benefits provision, which mandates insurers cover an array of services, including hospitalization, maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse services. This could lower premiums somewhat and give consumers a wider choice of plans. But it would also make it harder for people to buy comprehensive policies so those with pre-existing conditions may not be able to find coverage that meets their health care needs."
Total Defunding of Planned Parenthood.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:40:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 22:35:55 GMT
It's dead. For now.
But don't worry. They'll never stop coming after the life-saving care of low-to-middle income folks as long as the m/billionaires can keep taking home m/billions per year.
Cuz dog forbid the wealthiest 10% (who own 76% of the country) kick in an extra couple of hundred thousand to make sure the poor, sick, and young can get healthcare or education. Nope, it's way more important for them to get their 4th villa.
|
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 26, 2017 22:38:15 GMT
How much do you pay in taxes Zingermack? Because you always seem to have a comment about how others aren't paying enough.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:40:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 22:50:01 GMT
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,739
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 27, 2017 1:00:00 GMT
It's dead. For now. But don't worry. They'll never stop coming after the life-saving care of low-to-middle income folks as long as the m/billionaires can keep taking home m/billions per year. Cuz dog forbid the wealthiest 10% (who own 76% of the country) kick in an extra couple of hundred thousand to make sure the poor, sick, and young can get healthcare or education. Nope, it's way more important for them to get their 4th villa. you know what I keep hearing and it.drives.me.nuts.? the "we campaigned on repeal and replace. We have to keep our promise on it." And they seem to say it to get the votes. Period. How about if you are going to repeal and replace you slow down, plan, review, discuss and make it better? then go for it. Not do it just to say you did, see how it works out later. and honestly, I'm saying this now because it is happening now and has my attention so I can't say it hasn't happened in the past with different administrations and both parties. I just have heard it repeatedly the last couple/few days and I would so much more like to hear how and why it will be better as a reason to get it done. Not "we promised!" rant over (for now) |
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Sept 27, 2017 1:07:50 GMT
and honestly, I'm saying this now because it is happening now and has my attention so I can't say it hasn't happened in the past with different administrations and both parties. I just have heard it repeatedly the last couple/few days and I would so much more like to hear how and why it will be better as a reason to get it done. Not "we promised!" To be fair, no-one knew that healthcare could be so difficult.  |
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,739
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 27, 2017 1:38:10 GMT
and honestly, I'm saying this now because it is happening now and has my attention so I can't say it hasn't happened in the past with different administrations and both parties. I just have heard it repeatedly the last couple/few days and I would so much more like to hear how and why it will be better as a reason to get it done. Not "we promised!" To be fair, no-one knew that healthcare could be so difficult.  Oops. Forgot. Still catching up. I'm up to "the world is round." I forgot the new Who-knew-theory has now extended to healthcare. |
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,017 
|
Post by mimima on Sept 27, 2017 3:59:05 GMT
and honestly, I'm saying this now because it is happening now and has my attention so I can't say it hasn't happened in the past with different administrations and both parties. I just have heard it repeatedly the last couple/few days and I would so much more like to hear how and why it will be better as a reason to get it done. Not "we promised!" To be fair, no-one knew that healthcare could be so difficult. Hahaha. I laughed out loud |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Sept 27, 2017 4:58:28 GMT
Once you realize that the Republican party is not interested in the well-being of Americans as far as health goes, it becomes easier to understand their goals. They do not feel that the government should be involved in any way with your health. If you have money and can afford health insurance or a doctor visit and treatment, you can get it. If you don't have the money for that, you probably aren't the type of person who will make America better so it's not really a loss if 'your type' (ie,the sick and not rich type) lives a short, miserable life and then dies. It's really not their concern. Other countries DO believe that the health of their citizens is important and as such, the government has an important role to play in keeping their citizens healthy and well. The Republican party does not. The healthcare business is just that - a business - and they want no part in determining who can buy services and who can't. Just as they don't feel the need to ensure that every American is able to afford and purchase a car or an iPhone or a pair of really nice pants, healthcare is not their concern. It's nothing personal on their end. It's just that they don't want to get in the way of profits and whether or not you and your family can afford the care that you need isn't all that important. They really, truly don't care because they don't believe they should be involved in any way, other than to keep the business as regulation-free so that the shareholders can be happy with their bottom line. Yes. Healthcare is just another commodity, end of story. Not a basic human right. |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Sept 27, 2017 5:03:44 GMT
Yeah, how is that exactly going to work if the states can have different rules and laws for this? Basically, you will have a ton of people with health issues moving to states that offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and leaving the states that don't offer those things. The whole idea of insurance is that you have to cover enough well people to have enough funding to cover the sick people. If all of the sick people rush to CA, everyone there is going to have huge increases in premiums. Meanwhile, the states that don't cover much will see the sick people leaving and then their premiums may go down. So the reality is, the progressive states (that already subsidize the less well-off states) will get to subsidize them even more. One thing in the new bill that I've seen referred to is that the premium can be raised at any time if you are diagnosed with something. So let's say you've agreed to buy insurance for $900/month. Then you get diagnosed with cancer. The insurer can way "well....we know you have a policy with us and we said the premium was $900/month. But now you have cancer. The premium is now $4000/month. Take it or leave it, your choice." Isn't the whole point of insurance to purchase it when you don't need it so that it's there when you DO? What other product would you be ok with this sort of scheme? Yeah, we know we told you the car payments were $400/month when you signed the purchase agreement. But we found out that you plan to actually drive the car. The payments are actually going to be $800/month. Or you can just give the car back." Or at the supermarket - "Yeah, we know the milk was advertised on the shelf as $2/gallon. But you're buying pudding mix, so obviously you're planning to make pudding with it. Milk for pudding is $10/gallon. Your choice!" That's actually the current state of affairs, even with ACA. ACA trumps them for essential services, but where states rules are better than federal (ACA) or where no federal rules exist, states come under their own rules for coverage day in and day out. Its been that way since before ACA. I spend my days at work reading through ACA and 50 states of healthcare legislation. Some states have great parameters for their constituents, others not so much. Most red states in my observation, they'd actually be worse off it it went back to states only mandating legislation, ironically. |
|
Oops. Forgot. Still catching up. I'm up to "the world is round." I forgot the new Who-knew-theory has now extended to healthcare.
