Current Events > Government-provided health insurance

(+) Yeah! (+)

I just saw a political ad on TV. It seems that one of the candidates in my area wants the government to fund health care, and they also want to take away my employer-based insurance. This lunacy is going to cost a ton of money. Do they really think the average person can afford this change?
---

Do you pay a premium for your insurance
---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Do you pay a premium for your insurance

Doesn't everyone?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Do you pay a premium for your insurance

Doesn't everyone?

I believe the idea is that your taxes will go up but you won't be paying insurance premiums so it'll basically be a wash.
---

littlebro07 posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Do you pay a premium for your insurance

Doesn't everyone?

I believe the idea is that your taxes will go up but you won't be paying insurance premiums so it'll basically be a wash.

Unless you don't pay premiums. In which case you'll just get shafted more.
---

Doing that at a local level is truly meaningless.

The only way is to have a "Nationalized Health Insurance" of America where everybody who wants in, pays in.

Then the service can truly wield the giant pay hammer of monopolized Health Insurance along with exclusivity and price controls on Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Health Workers.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

littlebro07 posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Do you pay a premium for your insurance

Doesn't everyone?

I believe the idea is that your taxes will go up but you won't be paying insurance premiums so it'll basically be a wash.

Unless you don't pay premiums. In which case you'll just get shafted more.

Yeah, those people will get screwed but at least they can go to the doctor when they're sick without worrying about bankruptcy
---

big pharma needs to stop being greedy assholes
---

SSJCAT posted...

big pharma needs to stop being greedy assholes

You can do that by being a sole National Health Insurance that controls pricing and payment for pharmaceuticals.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Doing that at a local level is truly meaningless.

The only way is to have a "Nationalized Health Insurance" of America where everybody who wants in, pays in.

Then the service can truly wield the giant pay hammer of monopolized Health Insurance along with exclusivity and price controls on Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Health Workers.

This is about the national level. This $32 trillion plan is going to balloon taxes if it goes through.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Doing that at a local level is truly meaningless.

The only way is to have a "Nationalized Health Insurance" of America where everybody who wants in, pays in.

Then the service can truly wield the giant pay hammer of monopolized Health Insurance along with exclusivity and price controls on Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Health Workers.

This is about the national level. This $32 trillion plan is going to balloon taxes if it goes through.

32 trillion? That's gotta be a made up figure or just a grossly inaccurate one.
---

Kineth posted...

32 trillion? That's gotta be a made up figure or just a grossly inaccurate one.

No, the figure's accurate; that's how much federal healthcare spending would go up by over a decade.
*Note: keeping the status quo would mean spending $2 trillion more on healthcare over that same period to cover fewer people

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/
---

I don't think universal healthcare for all Americans is really feasible unless we can somehow get healthcare related costs down. Which of course will never happen.
---

Antifar posted...

Kineth posted...

32 trillion? That's gotta be a made up figure or just a grossly inaccurate one.

No, the figure's accurate; that's how much federal healthcare spending would go up by over a decade.
*Note: keeping the status quo would mean spending $2 trillion more on healthcare over that same period to cover fewer people

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/

Oh ok. I was thinking this meant a single yearly cost.

That said, it should be patently obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics that providing cheap, affordable health care to your citizens has multiple long term benefits that severely outweigh the initial short term costs.

GATTJT posted...

I don't think universal healthcare for all Americans is really feasible unless we can somehow get healthcare related costs down. Which of course will never happen.

Don't give up so easily. There's no reason that we can't make a change. It might take multiple steps, but it needs to be fixed.
---

medical bills are the #1 cause for bankrupcy in US, we need to do something different because our current model is not working

id rather pay higher taxes if that meant everyone had health insurance. right now i pay far out the ass for taxes and it pretty much just goes to fund police pensions and foreign proxy wars
---

green butter posted...

medical bills are the #1 cause for bankrupcy in US, we need to do something different because our current model is not working

id rather pay higher taxes if that meant everyone had health insurance. right now i pay far out the ass for taxes and it pretty much just goes to fund police pensions and foreign proxy wars

Agreed.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

I just saw a political ad on TV. It seems that one of the candidates in my area wants the government to fund health care, and they also want to take away my employer-based insurance. This lunacy is going to cost a ton of money. Do they really think the average person can afford this change?

Was this an ad for the candidate or against the candidate?
---

SuperMedz3 posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

I just saw a political ad on TV. It seems that one of the candidates in my area wants the government to fund health care, and they also want to take away my employer-based insurance. This lunacy is going to cost a ton of money. Do they really think the average person can afford this change?

Was this an ad for the candidate or against the candidate?

Against.

The ads for the candidate only seem to reference her military service. They haven't given the slightest hint of her agenda.
---

Take a good look at government-subsidized housing.

Then ask yourself if you really want government-subsidized healthcare.

My government-issued health insurance is significantly cheaper than employer-issued. Even the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper. Are you actually being honest here tc? Not saying you aren't per se, just curious. Trump supporters tend to lie about things when complaining.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

My government-issued health insurance is significantly cheaper than employer-issued.

it is cheaper for you, but not necessarily cheaper for the tax payer

I think it is cheaper for the tax payer but only if you appropriately account for costs outside the health system proper, but that is the crux of the argument
---

Kineth posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Doing that at a local level is truly meaningless.

The only way is to have a "Nationalized Health Insurance" of America where everybody who wants in, pays in.

Then the service can truly wield the giant pay hammer of monopolized Health Insurance along with exclusivity and price controls on Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Health Workers.

This is about the national level. This $32 trillion plan is going to balloon taxes if it goes through.

32 trillion? That's gotta be a made up figure or just a grossly inaccurate one.

It's over ten years.

[edit] ah, antifar already covered this, a while ago.

GATTJT posted...

I don't think universal healthcare for all Americans is really feasible unless we can somehow get healthcare related costs down. Which of course will never happen.

Go from the opposite direction, and ban all third party payers that aren't charity (and maybe also catastrophic coverage). Costs will collapse immediately.
Prices bloated up because we got used to someone else paying for it, and never bothered to shop around or compare prices. What other industry only reveals the price at the end of the transaction?