Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Single Payer in California... [Sweeney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There are people that pay more in taxes and health care premiums - than they receive in benefits.

There are ALSO people WHO LOUDLY PROCLAIM that they pay more in taxes and health care premiums- than they receive in benefits.

There is not a very large correlation between these two groups of people.

This is the problem.

You give an a-hole free health care - and he will complain about how he has overpaid.
You try to make an a-hole pay for his healthcare - he will refuse. And then complain about "government waste", bureaucracy, blah, blah etc.

This is how it was in 1998
This is how it will be in 2028
Too many a-holes.

Why does healthcare work better in Sweden.
Simple- Fewer a-holes.
Single payer - works
100% private- would also work

Now, will moving to a single payor system in California reduce the number of a-holes?
Probably not. Loose one a-hole. You probably get another.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Duffy [ In reply to ]
Re: Single Payer in California... [ZenosArrow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ZenosArrow wrote:
My wife is a cancer survivor and as her caretaker and supporter during the treatments I know how horrible the treatments are - and the anxiety which never goes away - every ache and pain, is it coming back? It's been 15 years. BTW as having had cancer she is now considered to be disabled.

Kudos to you as the caregiver. Sometimes I think it was as hard on my wife as it was on me. (Stem cell transplant for Leukemia, 5 years ago)
I'm so grateful to be alive, but also very anxious about relapse. Doubt that will ever subside.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I thought Obamacare insured everyone.

Obamacare didn't do much except cover more poor people. As I'm sure you know insurance costs continued to escalate. Trying to provide affordable health insurance through private companies was a bad idea. Had there been a public option, it would have kept costs to the users under control.

Medicare is a good model. It covers all seniors with basic health insurance, and you pay for supplemental insurance to cover as much more as you want.

The only good thing right now is that these Republicans will make such mess of things that the next administration can start over and so a better job next time.

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Sweeney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think single payer was the end game for democrats from the get go. If the republicans oppose it they better come up with solutions soon because next time around public may be ready for single payer.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Post deleted by Duffy [ In reply to ]
Re: Single Payer in California... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just to baseline for people who are not very familiar with Medicare - I am POA for my parents who have planned well for retirement.

Their Medicare related bills (base premium out of SS, supplemental premium and prescription premium (which seems to cover very little) plus prescription costs is about 11k/ year for two people- so about $500/ month per person. This does not include any dental or eye care or hearing aids which can easily add 4K depending what's going on.

I am thankful for their care and the costs are adjusted by income for some of the things. I just want to put it out there since many think you are given Medicare when you turn 65 when in fact you pay quite a bit for good coverage after having paid taxes depending on income.

That said it still seems like a pretty good deal and in three years I have not paid a single bill other than prescriptions, eye glasses, dental and hearing aids.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It also pays zero towards the 10k/ month of the care facility they live in. So that's a different budget line item.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by Duffy [ In reply to ]
Re: Single Payer in California... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How do you have health insurance for me? You do not work for the company I do who self insures so I cannot see how you supplement my insurance at all as you are not in the risk pool. I have a 6k deductible I never meet either.

My point was just to baseline that expanding Medicare to all might surprise people when they see that the costs of participation are higher than exepected. The number of people I run into who think Medicare is a free program is impressive.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The more i think about this, it would be even worse for employers than a 15% payroll tax.

If it gets implemented, there is no reason for employers to offer medical coverage, except the ACA requires large employers to offer medical coverage. So now the employer needs to 1) offer coverage no one will enroll in or 2) pay the ACA fine of $2,000 per month per employee. I'm not sure how they can convince an insurance company to work with them on #1.

Unless the federal government decides to adjust ACA to adapt for California, the IRS will fine all of the companies that have a workforce in California.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm on Medicare and I pay;

$134 per month, the max for someone who is retired, deducted from my Social Security. You can pay more if you are still working.

$189 to AARP United Healthcare for Supplemental insurance, one of the least expensive policies

$89 to Silverscript for prescriptions, again one of the least expensive policies

I have the inexpensive policies because I'm healthy and this keeps me in the game so I won't be penalized later when I do need these insurances.

The funny thing is that I can upgrade them any time I want and it will take effect immediately. Even if I'm shot by a jealous 28 year old husband; while I'm bleeding on the bed, I can call AARP and tell them ''I just got shot and I need to upgrade insurance fast'' Their answer would be ''Yes Mr Sweeny, it will take effect imediately, thank you for calling AARP''. I didn't believe this the first time I asked, so I called back the next day and got the same answer.

Being retired i GREAT!

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [BFrost] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BFrost wrote:
It is interesting, isn't it? We're single payer in Australia - for the most part. Medicare here is a 2% levy on everyone's taxable income - unless you have private health insurance, in which case you don't pay the 2%.

I honestly have never needed anything more than the service that Medicare provides. My eldest daughter's getting her tonsils out next week - nothing out of pocket. My youngest daughter was an elective caesarian - nothing out of pocket. Broken arms, emergency room trips - never paid a cent.

Private you get fancy stuff like physiotherapy, dental, chiropracty etc. I've no problem paying out of pocket for these rarely required services, given that keeping me alive is covered by Medicare.

Having said all that though, because it's been part of our system here for so long the cost to the government is nowhere near what the US would be. Here, the total cost of Medicare is estimated to be $75.4BAUD. Given that our population is around the 24 million mark, and around 10 million have private cover, that's around $5385 per person (not all of whom are paying in, of course). Sounds like the estimates over there are much higher, which may well make the system unfeasible.

So while single payer sounds good, if you can't get the costs down first, it's a money pit.
Yeah, except the 2% doesn't even scratch the surface of the actual cost to provide medicare and the over cost is quickly spiralling out of control.
We really need a co-payment for those that can afford it. Even $2. Just so people stop believing that medicare is "free"
Medicare is NOT free. Someone has to pay for healthcare.
Don't get me wrong, I think we have a pretty good system, but it can be better.
Personally I don't even mind paying a bit more to help those that can't pay. But Im sick of paying for those that can, but refuse to.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [ZenosArrow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ZenosArrow wrote:
BTW as having had cancer she is now considered to be disabled.
Why and by whom?
My wife is also a cancer survivor (going on 7 years cancer free) and if you called her disabled she would flat out sit you on your arse.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Andrew69] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes I have had patients who have completed their treatments and are quite capable of RTW and are shocked when I raise the issue. I can think of some pts who are damaged by their disease or treatment to the point that they are disabled though.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Andrew69] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Applying for jobs, the optional questions regarding ethnicity, vet and etc. being a cancer survivor is now listed as a disability
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Andrew69] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew69 wrote:
BFrost wrote:
It is interesting, isn't it? We're single payer in Australia - for the most part. Medicare here is a 2% levy on everyone's taxable income - unless you have private health insurance, in which case you don't pay the 2%.

I honestly have never needed anything more than the service that Medicare provides. My eldest daughter's getting her tonsils out next week - nothing out of pocket. My youngest daughter was an elective caesarian - nothing out of pocket. Broken arms, emergency room trips - never paid a cent.

Private you get fancy stuff like physiotherapy, dental, chiropracty etc. I've no problem paying out of pocket for these rarely required services, given that keeping me alive is covered by Medicare.

Having said all that though, because it's been part of our system here for so long the cost to the government is nowhere near what the US would be. Here, the total cost of Medicare is estimated to be $75.4BAUD. Given that our population is around the 24 million mark, and around 10 million have private cover, that's around $5385 per person (not all of whom are paying in, of course). Sounds like the estimates over there are much higher, which may well make the system unfeasible.

So while single payer sounds good, if you can't get the costs down first, it's a money pit.

Yeah, except the 2% doesn't even scratch the surface of the actual cost to provide medicare and the over cost is quickly spiralling out of control.
We really need a co-payment for those that can afford it. Even $2. Just so people stop believing that medicare is "free"
Medicare is NOT free. Someone has to pay for healthcare.
Don't get me wrong, I think we have a pretty good system, but it can be better.
Personally I don't even mind paying a bit more to help those that can't pay. But Im sick of paying for those that can, but refuse to.

Agreed. That's why I tried to use the term 'Out of pocket' as opposed to free. To those below the income threshold it's free though.

My family put in around $4000 for a four-person household. As mentioned, cost per person is roughly $5K, so yes, absolutely the over-cost even for people with a reasonable income is gigantic. I'm not convinced it's sustainable, but if that's where the payroll tax and part of the GST goes to, well then I'm okay with that. If they bump up the percentages to allow for higher income earners then so be it - it'd certainly provide a fillip to the private health insurance sector.

Having said all that though, the point was more to mention that our per-person costs are substantially lower than those quoted in the US.

I will let you down.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [BFrost] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BFrost wrote:
Having said all that though, the point was more to mention that our per-person costs are substantially lower than those quoted in the US.
True, but how do you unscramble an egg?
Very hard (if not impossible) to try and emulate what we have done in the US now.
Quote Reply
Re: Single Payer in California... [Andrew69] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew69 wrote:
BFrost wrote:

Having said all that though, the point was more to mention that our per-person costs are substantially lower than those quoted in the US.

True, but how do you unscramble an egg?
Very hard (if not impossible) to try and emulate what we have done in the US now.

They can't. To try to emulate anyone else would be lunacy. To be quite frank, I bundle that in with the whole discussion on gun laws too - to try to implant one country's ideas and systems into another simply doesn't work. In some ways, its like trying to transplant democracy into a country that has never had it.

The US is what it is. Any change would have to be incremental. Just throwing single-payer into even a single state is a recipe for failure without restructuring the back end and the on-costs first.

I will let you down.
Quote Reply

Prev Next